xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: add regression test for btrfs incremental send

To: Filipe David Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: add regression test for btrfs incremental send
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 12:17:14 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, "linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAL3q7H46_AHDtACuZunRJgSymejgr73NVZ-TWNuBuD6z3j9KXg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1392408522-764-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx> <1392478573-4513-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx> <20140216230851.GX13647@dastard> <CAL3q7H46_AHDtACuZunRJgSymejgr73NVZ-TWNuBuD6z3j9KXg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:43:17PM +0000, Filipe David Manana wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 03:36:13PM +0000, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
> >> Test for a btrfs incremental send issue where we end up sending a
> >> wrong section of data from a file extent if the corresponding file
> >> extent is compressed and the respective file extent item has a non
> >> zero data offset.
> >>
> >> Fixed by the following linux kernel btrfs patch:
> >>
> >>    Btrfs: use right clone root offset for compressed extents
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> V2: Made the test more reliable. Now it doesn't depend anymore of btrfs'
> >>     hole punch implementation leaving hole file extent items when we punch
> >>     beyond the file's current size.
> >>
> >>  tests/btrfs/040     |  115 
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  tests/btrfs/040.out |    1 +
> >>  tests/btrfs/group   |    1 +
> >>  3 files changed, 117 insertions(+)
> >>  create mode 100755 tests/btrfs/040
> >>  create mode 100644 tests/btrfs/040.out
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/040 b/tests/btrfs/040
> >> new file mode 100755
> >> index 0000000..d6b37bf
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/tests/btrfs/040
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
> >> +#! /bin/bash
> >> +# FS QA Test No. btrfs/040
> >> +#
> >> +# Test for a btrfs incremental send issue where we end up sending a
> >> +# wrong section of data from a file extent if the corresponding file
> >> +# extent is compressed and the respective file extent item has a non
> >> +# zero data offset.
> >> +#
> >> +# Fixed by the following linux kernel btrfs patch:
> >> +#
> >> +#   Btrfs: use right clone root offset for compressed extents
> >> +#
> >> +#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> +# Copyright (c) 2014 Filipe Manana.  All Rights Reserved.
> >> +#
> >> +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> >> +# modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> >> +# published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >> +#
> >> +# This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful,
> >> +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> >> +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> >> +# GNU General Public License for more details.
> >> +#
> >> +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> >> +# along with this program; if not, write the Free Software Foundation,
> >> +# Inc.,  51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA
> >> +#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> +#
> >> +
> >> +seq=`basename $0`
> >> +seqres=$RESULT_DIR/$seq
> >> +echo "QA output created by $seq"
> >> +
> >> +here=`pwd`
> >> +tmp=`mktemp -d`
> >> +status=1     # failure is the default!
> >> +trap "_cleanup; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15
> >> +
> >> +_cleanup()
> >> +{
> >> +    rm -fr $tmp
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +# get standard environment, filters and checks
> >> +. ./common/rc
> >> +. ./common/filter
> >> +
> >> +# real QA test starts here
> >> +_supported_fs btrfs
> >> +_supported_os Linux
> >> +_require_scratch
> >> +_need_to_be_root
> >> +
> >> +FSSUM_PROG=$here/src/fssum
> >> +[ -x $FSSUM_PROG ] || _notrun "fssum not built"
> >> +
> >> +rm -f $seqres.full
> >> +
> >> +_scratch_mkfs >/dev/null 2>&1
> >> +_scratch_mount "-o compress-force=lzo"
> >> +
> >> +run_check $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "truncate 118811" $SCRATCH_MNT/foo
> >> +run_check $XFS_IO_PROG -c "pwrite -S 0x0d -b 39987 92267 39987" \
> >> +     $SCRATCH_MNT/foo
> >
> > Ugh. filter the output, don't use run_check.
> >
> > $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "truncate 118811" $SCRATCH_MNT/foo
> > $XFS_IO_PROG -c "pwrite -S 0x0d -b 39987 92267 39987" \
> >         $SCRATCH_MNT/foo | _filter_xfs_io
> >
> > If something fails, we still want the test to continue running, even
> > if all it does is exercise error handling paths. run_check simply
> > terminates the test at the first failure.
> 
> What's the point of continuing? The test will fail anyway, all of the
> xfs_io calls are necessary to trigger the bug.

Users don't stop doing doing stuff on a filesystem when a single
failure occurs, so why should the tests? If you stop the moment a
single failure occurs then you aren't ever going to stress the error
handling paths, are you?

> > _run_btrfs_util_prog()
> > {
> >         run_check $BTRFS_UTIL_PROG $*
> > }
> >
> > would be a good start because it gets that run_check pattern out of
> > the main test scripts and hence out of the heads of test writers.
> 
> Well, will get rid of those run_check calls, but that will imply
> adding some | _filter_scratch in many places. So shortening lines is
> not a great argument :)

I'm not talking about shortening lines here. I'm talking about the
correct principles and conceptsi being in the forefront of a test
writer's mind. Having the concept of "need to filter the output" in
the head of test writers is *exactly* the right mindset to have.

Indeed, if you have a block of code that needs common filtering,
that's easy to do:

do_test()
{
        # put test in function
}

do_test | _filter_scratch

Will apply that filter to the entire output of the test, and so
you don't need it on every command.

Remember - an xfstest is not a "pass/fail" test. It's a "run this
set of commands, and then check the entire output matches the known
good output" test. i.e. we are testing the entire set of commands as
a whole - we are not testing each individual command that is run.
It's a very different principle to the "test every command that can
fail" method of writing tests.

_fail should only be used if the test cannot possibly be continued
(e.g. scratch filesystem corrupted and cannot be mounted).  If one
of the early commands fails, then that's fine - the test will fail -
but we still want to run the other commands if we can so as to get
the best test coverage we can get even on failed tests.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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