xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: REVIEW XFSQA test out xfs_attr_shortform_bytesfit attr2/attr1 fix

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, "bnaujok@xxxxxxx via BugWorks" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: REVIEW XFSQA test out xfs_attr_shortform_bytesfit attr2/attr1 fix
From: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:35:36 +1000
Cc: xfs-dev <xfs-dev@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, asg-qa <asgqa@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20080410053601.GK108924158@xxxxxxx>
References: <47FC79FC.5020803@xxxxxxx> <20080410053601.GK108924158@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213)
Hi Dave and Barry,

David Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:10:36PM +1000, Timothy Shimmin wrote:
Hi there,

A test to test out Eric's fix for xfs_attr_shortform_bytesfit
bug when going from attr2 to attr1.

With TOT kernel, without patch, one can see the corrupted inline
dirents. With patch, all is well.

The 186.out _should_ be output'ing ATTR2 for the db version
command but I'm awaiting Barry's xfsprogs checkin to fix that one -
and then I will regenerate it.

Really? I'm seeing it fail with ATTR2 in the xfs_db output...

That's what I used to see until I updated to TOT kernel.
That's weird.
And I don't know why ATTR and ATTR2 is coming out either.
I assume it is all about the recent version 2 changes,
and what was done in userspace and in the kernel.
Barry, can you enlighten us here?
Do we have latest changes for xfs_db and mkfs now?
That's why I was waiting to ensure I had the latest user changes;
it feels like xfs_db is getting things wrong as the
mkfs and kernel behaviour seems to be behaving like I expected.

--Tim

dgc@budgie:~/xfstests$ sudo ./check 186
FSTYP         -- xfs (debug)
PLATFORM      -- Linux/ia64 budgie 2.6.25-rc3-dgc-xfs
MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -bsize=4096 /dev/sdb6
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdb6 /mnt/scratch

186      - output mismatch (see 186.out.bad)
13a14
ATTR2
98a100
ATTR2
Failures: 186
Failed 1 of 1 tests
dgc@budgie:~/xfstests$

So the first is supposed to be there, but the second shows:

....
=================================
ATTR
ATTR2
core.forkoff = 47
....

Are both supposed to be present?

Cheers,

Dave.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>