[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: Add test case to test xfs projid32bit functionalit

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: Add test case to test xfs projid32bit functionality a bit more extensively.
From: Boris Ranto <ranto.boris@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:57:54 +0200
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XR6cFdCzqPiRR35cwKMKRJj4mirNCUyi7RCLYFb/U0I=; b=LJ1DQ0MfiReqf1vT8mdMunrlnJWqLGNR/eY2lt9u3ViQZCqqp57TFb4Qz5JiatzUYH ajbluboj3Z8eC2S8xwOqQZ6g8vyhHJ7iL4ArorKLBq0Nt2fvfyVegC4LJFPuKLpp+Tfg OPx+bwTr0uwoQndHtgr0P8hMUVsFQCWu5KCYJ+js23E0DmK1zbRkhnzjIkSk276xTXXs BHUnXWD5ti+u/YT1no7TmyH9t5H0VZ6nBhyjLr8ZEEYGwHZGaClRlaM++QXMZx514mxs SWTogJ3VVTWa5jU6wc6zDzKK/SixU/07bdmmmTRK/t5XqIPLaNz2c109rfq0/874NHLv 4qbA==
In-reply-to: <503C07F4.2080706@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAFZPdfjeDGXfhAP4hnnrdA6Fpr18pEq6vH726HpfduPp6vw3-A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <503C07F4.2080706@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 8/27/12 5:04 AM, Boris Ranto wrote:
>>  The test covers several areas including enabling projid32bit functionality 
>> dynamically by xfs_admin, dumping, restoring, quota reporting and xfs_db 
>> projid values reporting.
>>  At the time of creation, the test hit two bugs: one for broken 
>> xfsdump/xfsrestore functionality and one for enabling projid32bit 
>> functionality with xfs_admin on a LVM device (SCRATCH_DEV must be an LVM 
>> device to hit this).
> FWIW, with a bit of investigation I think the lvm behavior may be an lvm bug. 
>  IOW this should never happen;
> somehow buffered IO to the LVM device seems to be getting lost:
> # xfs_db -r -c version  /dev/mapper/vg-01-xfscratch
> versionnum [0xb4a4+0x8a] = 
> # echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> # xfs_db -r -c version  /dev/mapper/vg-01-xfscratch
> versionnum [0xb4e4+0xa] = 
> But I guess the test itself doesn't explicitly require lvm, so no big deal 
> there.
> What is the point of using loopback during dump & restore?  Why not just dump 
> to $tmp
> and restore to $SCRATCH_DEV, either after a fresh mkfs, or to a subdir of the 
> existing
> filesystem?
> I get nervous about the loopback handling complexity....

I just wanted to keep the original data and compare them with diff.
The subdirectory dump will work fine, as well. I'll post the reworked
version of the patch, soon.


> -Eric
>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ranto <ranto.boris@xxxxxxxxx 
>> <mailto:ranto.boris@xxxxxxxxx>>
>> ---

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