xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v3] xfstests: add regression test for btrfs incremental send

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] xfstests: add regression test for btrfs incremental send
From: Filipe David Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:42:53 +0000
Cc: "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=X8AnFWULOZPv6BMdulxAKNu9BaAOdcDZFCp8OXcSwtE=; b=Irqb81tK5IzueenbfIbg8+W5M7i9j6dOr4oriXlGrbrf+x7gSRMCDKYWT0rcCJdwrg 7cDsP1bOL+5Wq/NG7Zf+LuK4zTZbPpumJinKlGlNifZ00qJmqBzTxTCuUgRwlmXet2zM yssiEeadtGfKLSvcSfBBfTN5nN5pw116RVWa86CAnmrnNc8WzFluZTecGvxTkVjPFCUw VFXLH1XOPd+cuJN0d9dHs5h3SH5q7SQs6HlapbpJ+s5keztq5bwa/kiES2wM5GHK30bG V4V7JJhfa1WgnrDcBdhbTxu/Imyifu5f/CuXsG9BfIoRbU+0wQbRT1KHlhr2XRlF1hP0 6q6w==
In-reply-to: <20140217011929.GA13997@dastard>
References: <1392408522-764-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx> <1392596438-6509-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx> <20140217011929.GA13997@dastard>
Reply-to: fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:20:38AM +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.
>> V3: Filter xfs_io output and make less use of the run_check function, as
>>     suggested by Dave Chinner.
>
> Awesome. Thanks for the quick turn around.
>
>>  common/rc           |    5 +++
>>  tests/btrfs/040     |  119 
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  tests/btrfs/040.out |    9 ++++
>>  tests/btrfs/group   |    1 +
>>  4 files changed, 134 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100755 tests/btrfs/040
>>  create mode 100644 tests/btrfs/040.out
>>
>> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
>> index e91568b..27be009 100644
>> --- a/common/rc
>> +++ b/common/rc
>> @@ -2207,6 +2207,11 @@ run_check()
>>       "$@" >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || _fail "failed: '$@'"
>>  }
>>
>> +_run_btrfs_util_prog()
>> +{
>> +     run_check $BTRFS_UTIL_PROG $*
>> +}
>
> Can you do a cleanup of all the other btrfs tests that can use this?

I just did that for all the non-merged test cases (4 including this
one), as you probably have noticed already by now.
I'll see if I can do the same for the ones already in the git repository soon.

thanks

>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



-- 
Filipe David Manana,

"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
 Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
 That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."

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