xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: xfs directory unbalance assert test

To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: xfs directory unbalance assert test
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:51:34 -0500
Cc: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <523879DE.1020302@xxxxxxx>
References: <20130917145946.124195107@xxxxxxx> <20130917145959.333796933@xxxxxxx> <20130917152852.GA9550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <523879DE.1020302@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
On 9/17/13 10:48 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 09/17/13 10:28, Eryu Guan wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:59:47AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> ...
> 
>>> +_scratch_unmount>  /dev/null 2>&1
>>
>> This is not necessary, _require_scratch has done the unmount work.
> 
> okay, stole that from other tests.
> 
>>
>>> +_scratch_mkfs_sized 11g>>  $seqres.full 2>&1
>>
>> _scratch_mkfs_sized expects fssize in bytes, 11g is not a valid value
>> The comments in common/rc about _scratch_mkfs_sized say
>>
>> # _scratch_mkfs_sized<size in bytes>  [optional blocksize]
> 
> That was a shortcut for xfs. Looking in common/rc. I see that it breaks the 
> other filesystems that need the size in blocks.

at least mkfs.extN also understands "11g" but the helper does not, because
it causes a failure in the device size check, (for any fs):

        [ "$fssize" -gt "$devsize" ] && _notrun "Scratch device too small"
> ...
> 
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
>>> +QA output created by 319
>>> +--- silence is golden ---
>>> Index: b/tests/generic/group
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- a/tests/generic/group
>>> +++ b/tests/generic/group
>>> @@ -121,3 +121,4 @@
>>>   316 auto quick
>>>   317 auto metadata quick
>>>   318 acl attr auto quick
>>> +319 stress
>>
>> Should be in auto group too I guess.
> 
> It takes a very long time to run to completion, don't know if people want 
> this in the auto run.

how long is long?  We do have "quick" for people who want quick.  I think auto 
is probably
ok.  Maybe we should add a "slow" group, and you can "-x slow" :)

-Eric

>> Thanks,
>> Eryu Guan
> 
> Thanks for the feedback
> 
> --Mark.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

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