From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BD27F54 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:58:20 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <52387C1B.6090203@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:58:19 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: xfs directory unbalance assert test References: <20130917145946.124195107@sgi.com> <20130917145959.333796933@sgi.com> <52387831.5010205@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <52387831.5010205@sandeen.net> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 09/17/13 10:41, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 9/17/13 9:59 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote: >> This tests triggers an assert in the XFS directory unbalance code. >> This test originally written by Brian Foster and suggestions >> from Micheal Semon. > > cool, thanks. Comments below. > >> Signed-off-by: Mark Tinguely >> --- >> tests/generic/319 | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> tests/generic/319.out | 2 + >> tests/generic/group | 1 >> 3 files changed, 65 insertions(+) >> >> Index: b/tests/generic/319 >> =================================================================== >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tests/generic/319 >> @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ >> +#! /bin/bash >> +# FS QA Test No. 319 >> +# >> +# Test directory code correctly handles fsstress filling the filesystem >> +# >> +#----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> +# Copyright (c) 2013 SGI. All Rights Reserved. >> +# >> +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or >> +# modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as >> +# published by the Free Software Foundation. >> +# >> +# This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful, >> +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of >> +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the >> +# GNU General Public License for more details. >> +# >> +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License >> +# along with this program; if not, write the Free Software Foundation, >> +# Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA >> +#----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> +# >> + >> +seq=`basename $0` >> +seqres=$RESULT_DIR/$seq >> +echo "QA output created by $seq" >> + >> +here=`pwd` >> +tmp=/tmp/$$ >> +status=1 # failure is the default! >> +trap "_cleanup; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15 >> + >> +_cleanup() >> +{ >> + cd / >> +} > > That seems pointless; usually it's done w/ rm -f $tmp.* > right after, but we have no tmpfile, so... Yeah, no cleanup is needed. >> + >> +# get standard environment, filters and checks >> +. ./common/rc >> +. ./common/filter >> +_require_scratch >> + >> +# real QA test starts here >> + >> +_supported_fs generic >> +_supported_os IRIX Linux >> + >> +_scratch_unmount> /dev/null 2>&1 > > Aside: > > I see this done both ways - is it required to unmount scratch at the beginning > of a test? I don't think so (I know it's done in many tests, though, but > again, C&P& cargo cult? Or not? I'm not sure :( ) > > I guess it doesn't hurt, but at some point I'd like to get it straight > about who's required to umount scratch, and when (if at all). Have to unmount for the mkfs, as noted by Eryu, it is already done. I would rather manually unmount it than be surprised when someone changes the common files. > >> +_scratch_mkfs_sized 11g>> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > _scratch_mkfs_sized doesn't take units like this ('g'), so the above fails to > actually make an 11g fs: > > # Create fs of certain size on scratch device > # _scratch_mkfs_sized [optional blocksize] > _scratch_mkfs_sized() > > so we get this in 319.full: > > expr: non-numeric argument > ./common/rc: line 576: [: 11g: integer expression expected > > but then it seems like mkfs carries on anyway w/ defaults. :( > > Apparently the mkfs 11g part isn't actually critical? ;) it works on xfs because mkfs.xfs size can take those values, but yes it breaks on other filesystem. my bad. > > maybe _scratch_mkfs_sized needs something like this at the top: > > re='^[0-9]+$' > if ! [[ $fssize =~ $re ]] ; then > _notrun "error: _scratch_mkfs_sized: $fssize not a number of bytes" > fi > >> +_scratch_mount> /dev/null 2>&1 > > is ignore-all-output really the right thing to do? When does _scratch_mount > emit anything? (more cargo cult)? :) > >> +# Fill the filesystem. >> +FSSTRESS_ARGS="-z -s 1378390208 -fsymlink=1 -n7500000 -p4 -d $SCRATCH_MNT" >> +$FSSTRESS_PROG $FSSTRESS_ARGS>> $seqres.full 2>&1 >> + >> +cd $SCRATCH_MNT>> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > cd doesn't emit anything except on error, right, and if there's an error we'd better > stop the test right here! > >> +sync >> +# A debug XFS may assert in the remove due to a directory bug. >> +rm -rf * > > I'd feel a whole lot better if you did rm -rf $SCRATCH_MNT/* just in case > we somehow ended up in the wrong place here. > > Or even better if you pointed fsstress at $SCRATCH_MNT/$seq.dir, and > then did rm -rf $SCRATCH_MNT/$seq.dir - just to avoid that nasty > should-never-happen-still-scary "rm -rf /*" > Makes a lot of sense. > -Eric Thanks Eric. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs