Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: online grow vs. log recovery stress test

[Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 01:32:42AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:34:04PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > fstests includes decent functional tests for online growfs and
> > shrink, and decent stress tests for crash and log recovery, but no
> > combination of the two. This test combines bits from a typical
> > growfs stress test like xfs/104 with crash recovery cycles from a
> > test like generic/388. As a result, this reproduces at least a
> > couple recently fixed issues related to log recovery of online
> > growfs operations.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> > ---
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Thanks for this new test case! Some tiny review points below :)
> 
> >  tests/xfs/609     | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  tests/xfs/609.out |  7 +++++
> >  2 files changed, 76 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100755 tests/xfs/609
> >  create mode 100644 tests/xfs/609.out
> > 
...
> > diff --git a/tests/xfs/609.out b/tests/xfs/609.out
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000..1853cc65
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tests/xfs/609.out
> > @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
> > +QA output created by 609
> > +meta-data=DDEV isize=XXX agcount=N, agsize=XXX blks
> > +data     = bsize=XXX blocks=XXX, imaxpct=PCT
> > +         = sunit=XXX swidth=XXX, unwritten=X
> > +naming   =VERN bsize=XXX
> > +log      =LDEV bsize=XXX blocks=XXX
> > +realtime =RDEV extsz=XXX blocks=XXX, rtextents=XXX
> 
> So what's this output in .out file for? How about "Silence is golden"?
> 

No particular reason.. this was mostly a mash and cleanup of a couple
preexisting tests around growfs and crash recovery, so probably just
leftover from that. All of these suggestions sound good to me. I'll
apply them and post a v2. Thanks for the review!

Brian

> Thanks,
> Zorro
> 
> > -- 
> > 2.46.2
> > 
> > 
>