Re: question of xfs/148 and xfs/149

[Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>]

on 2019/09/18 10:59, Zorro Lang wrote:
> xfs/030 is weird, I've found it long time ago.
> 
> If I do a 'whole disk mkfs' (_scratch_mkfs_xfs), before this sized mkfs:
> 
>    _scratch_mkfs_xfs $DSIZE >/dev/null 2>&1
> 
> Everything looks clear, and test pass. I can't send a patch to do this,
> because I don't know the reason.
Yes. I also found running _scratch_mkfs_xfs in xfs/030 can slove this 
problem yesterday. Or, we can adjust _try_wipe_scratch_devs order in 
check(But I dont't have enough reason to explain why adjust it). as below:
--- a/check
+++ b/check
@@ -753,7 +753,6 @@ for section in $HOST_OPTIONS_SECTIONS; do
                         # _check_dmesg depends on this log in dmesg
                         touch ${RESULT_DIR}/check_dmesg
                 fi
-               _try_wipe_scratch_devs > /dev/null 2>&1
                 if [ "$DUMP_OUTPUT" = true ]; then
                         _run_seq 2>&1 | tee $tmp.out
                         # Because $? would get tee's return code
@@ -799,7 +798,7 @@ for section in $HOST_OPTIONS_SECTIONS; do
                 # Scan for memory leaks after every test so that 
associating
                 # a leak to a particular test will be as accurate as 
possible.
                 _check_kmemleak || err=true
-
+               _try_wipe_scratch_devs > /dev/null 2>&1
                 # test ends after all checks are done.
                 $timestamp && _timestamp
                 stop=`_wallclock`

> 
> I'm not familiar with xfs_repair so much, so I don't know what happens
> underlying. I suppose the the part after the $DSIZE affect the xfs_repair,
> but I don't know why the wipefs can cause that, wipefs only erase 4 bytes
> at the beginning.
> 
  I am finding the reasion. It seems wipefs wipes important information 
and $DSIZE option(using single agcount or dsize, it also fails ) can not 
format disk completely. If we use other options, it can pass.
> Darrick, do you know more about that?
> 
> Thanks,
> Zorro
> 
>>> xfs/148 is a clone of test 030 using xfs_prepair64 instead of xfs_repair.
>>> xfs/149 is a clone of test 031 using xfs_prepair instead of xfs_repair
> I'm not worried about it too much, due to it always 'not run' and never
> failsYes. But I perfer to remove them because IMO they are useless.
> 

> xfs/148 [not run] parallel repair binary xfs_prepair64 is not installed
> xfs/149 [not run] parallel repair binary xfs_prepair is not installed
> Ran: xfs/148 xfs/149
> Not run: xfs/148 xfs/149
> Passed all 2 tests
>