xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfstests: test ext4 statfs

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfstests: test ext4 statfs
From: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:28:32 -0500
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, ext4 development <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <508AD8E8.1040301@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5089749C.4050003@xxxxxxxxxx> <508AD066.4090102@xxxxxxx> <508AD8E8.1040301@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1
On 10/26/2012 01:39 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/26/12 1:03 PM, Rich Johnston wrote:
On 10/25/2012 12:19 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Calculating free blocks in ext[234] is surprisingly hard, since
by default we report "bsd" style df which doesn't count filesystem
"overhead" blocks as used.

With a lot of code dedicated to sorting out what to report as
free, things tend to go wrong surprisingly often.

Here's a test to actually try to stop the next regression.  ;)

NB: For bsddf, the kernel currently does not count journal blocks
as overhead; it probably should.  But the test below looks to have
the result within 1% of perfection, so it still passes even if
the kernel doesn't count the journal against free blocks.

Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>

---




Yep - it's an ext4 bug.  I sent a patch to fix it.

[PATCH] ext4: fix overhead calculations in ext4_stats, again

You might want to retest w/ that.

-Eric

+

Thanks Eric,

Everything passes now.

Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>


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