xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: xfs directory unbalance assert test
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:00:18 -0500
Cc: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <52387A86.9000201@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20130917145946.124195107@xxxxxxx> <20130917145959.333796933@xxxxxxx> <20130917152852.GA9550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <523879DE.1020302@xxxxxxx> <52387A86.9000201@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0
On 09/17/13 10:51, Eric Sandeen wrote:
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.

About 45 minutes.

--Mark.

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