On Wed, 25 May 2022 09:53:53 +0100, Luís Henriques wrote: > David Disseldorp <ddiss@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > Hi Luís, > > > > It looks like this one is still in need of review... > > Ah! Thanks for reminding me about it, David! > > > > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:34:09 +0100, Luís Henriques wrote: > > > >> When using a directory with 'max_bytes' quota as a base for a mount, > >> statfs shall use that 'max_bytes' value as the total disk size. That > >> value shall be used even when using subdirectory as base for the mount. > >> > >> A bug was found where, when this subdirectory also had a 'max_files' > >> quota, the real filesystem size would be returned instead of the parent > >> 'max_bytes' quota value. This test case verifies this bug is fixed. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> tests/ceph/005 | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> tests/ceph/005.out | 2 ++ > >> 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100755 tests/ceph/005 > >> create mode 100644 tests/ceph/005.out > >> > >> diff --git a/tests/ceph/005 b/tests/ceph/005 > >> new file mode 100755 > >> index 000000000000..0763a235a677 > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/tests/ceph/005 > >> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ > >> +#! /bin/bash > >> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > >> +# Copyright (C) 2022 SUSE Linux Products GmbH. All Rights Reserved. > >> +# > >> +# FS QA Test 005 > >> +# > >> +# Make sure statfs reports correct total size when: > >> +# 1. using a directory with 'max_byte' quota as base for a mount > >> +# 2. using a subdirectory of the above directory with 'max_files' quota > >> +# > >> +. ./common/preamble > >> +_begin_fstest auto quick quota > >> + > >> +_supported_fs generic > >> +_require_scratch > >> + > >> +_scratch_mount > >> +mkdir -p $SCRATCH_MNT/quota-dir/subdir > >> + > >> +# set quotas > >> +quota=$((1024*10000)) > >> +$SETFATTR_PROG -n ceph.quota.max_bytes -v $quota $SCRATCH_MNT/quota-dir > >> +$SETFATTR_PROG -n ceph.quota.max_files -v $quota $SCRATCH_MNT/quota-dir/subdir > >> +_scratch_unmount > >> + > >> +SCRATCH_DEV=$SCRATCH_DEV/quota-dir _scratch_mount > > > > Aside from the standard please-quote-your-variables gripe, I'm a little > > Sure, I'll fix those in next iteration. > > > confused with the use of SCRATCH_DEV for this test. Network FSes where > > mkfs isn't provided don't generally use it. Is there any way that this > > could be run against TEST_DEV, or does the umount / mount complicate > > things too much? > > When I looked at other tests doing similar things (i.e. changing the mount > device during the test), they all seemed to be using SCRATCH_DEV. I guess > that I could change TEST_DEV instead. I'll revisit this and see if that > works. > > Anyway, regarding the usage of SCRATCH_DEV in cephfs, I've used several > different approaches: > > - Use 2 different filesystems created on the same cluster, > - Use 2 volumes on the same filesystem, or > - Simply use 2 directories in the same filesystem. Looking at _scratch_mkfs($FSTYP=ceph) there is support for scratch filesystem reinitialization, so I suppose this should be okay. With cephfs we could actually go one step further and call "ceph fs rm/new", but that's something for another day :-). Cheers, David
