From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E69FC4CEC9 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 03:24:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E825A218AF for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 03:24:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728279AbfIRDY4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 23:24:56 -0400 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:59021 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726538AbfIRDY4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 23:24:56 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,519,1559491200"; d="scan'208";a="75627860" Received: from unknown (HELO cn.fujitsu.com) ([10.167.33.5]) by heian.cn.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 18 Sep 2019 11:24:53 +0800 Received: from G08CNEXCHPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local (unknown [10.167.33.83]) by cn.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DAF94CE14E7; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:24:49 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.167.220.84] (10.167.220.84) by G08CNEXCHPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:24:57 +0800 Subject: Re: question of xfs/148 and xfs/149 To: Zorro Lang , "Darrick J. Wong" CC: "fstests@vger.kernel.org" , xfs References: <4BF2FD5A942B1C4B828DDAF5635768C1041AB0E2@G08CNEXMBPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local> <20190917163933.GC736475@magnolia> <20190918025915.GK7239@dhcp-12-102.nay.redhat.com> From: Yang Xu Message-ID: <7b5d5797-afff-90bc-0131-38fd13eced34@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:24:47 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190918025915.GK7239@dhcp-12-102.nay.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.220.84] X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: 4DAF94CE14E7.A14DF X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org 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 >