----- 原始邮件 ----- > 发件人: "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> > 收件人: "Zirong Lang" <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Dave Chinner" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > 抄送: fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, eguan@xxxxxxxxxx > 发送时间: 星期六, 2016年 2 月 20日 上午 12:35:08 > 主题: Re: [PATCH] xfs: change return value check to golden image check > > > > On 2/19/16 9:58 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > > > > On 2/19/16 9:35 AM, Zirong Lang wrote: > >> > >> > >> ----- 原始邮件 ----- > >>> 发件人: "Dave Chinner" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> 收件人: "Zorro Lang" <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> 抄送: fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, eguan@xxxxxxxxxx > >>> 发送时间: 星期五, 2016年 2 月 19日 上午 9:33:16 > >>> 主题: Re: [PATCH] xfs: change return value check to golden image check > >>> > >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:37:36AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > >>>> xfs/133 and xfs/138 use too much code to do "return value" check, > >>>> it's not necessary. For the code can be more readable and clear, > >>>> I change "return value" check to golden image check. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> --- > >>>> tests/xfs/133 | 20 +++++++------------- > >>>> tests/xfs/133.out | 7 +++++++ > >>>> tests/xfs/138 | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- > >>>> tests/xfs/138.out | 12 ++++++++++++ > >>>> 4 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> This cause a xfs/133 failure like this on my systems: > >>> > >>> --- tests/xfs/133.out 2016-02-19 10:40:57.043131919 +1100 > >>> +++ /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/133.out.bad > >>> 2016-02-19 > >>> 12:24:53.173589432 +1100 > >>> @@ -4,5 +4,6 @@ > >>> Filesystem Blocks Quota Limit Warn/Time Mounted on > >>> SCRATCH_DEV 0 102400 204800 00 [--------] SCRATCH_MNT > >>> === report command output === > >>> +(null) 0 0 0 00 [--------] > > > > I need to dig, but this may be a result of GETNEXTQUOTA additions to > > xfs_quota. > > > > We can now find IDs on disk that don't exist in the user database, and > > we would not have reported them before. > > > > Perhaps change the test to report ids not names, to debug it and see > > which one it is finding? > > > > I'm guessing it's ID 0, but I have to think about whether that's correct > > to show or not... > > Ok, with Zorro's help, we see that this is a result of GETNEXTQUOTA. > > With that in place, "report" shows all active quotas, skipping only > if XFS_IS_DQUOT_UNINITIALIZED(). But project ID 0 has 4 inodes > accounted for: > > # xfs_db -c "dquot -p 0" -c print /dev/... > ... > diskdq.bcount = 0 > diskdq.icount = 4 > diskdq.itimer = 0 > diskdq.btimer = 0 > ... > > We never reported ID 0 before, because it was not in the projects file. > But it looks active, so GETNEXTQUOTA finds and returns it now. > > I'm not actually sure what the best way is to fix this; I was even on > the fence about using GETNEXTQUOTA for project quotas at all, because > we always have a local file of projects to iterate anyway. > > We could explicitly look up id 0 and not show it if it's not in the > projects file. > > We could not use GETNEXTQUOTA in the kernel for project quotas. > > We could skip printing id 0 altogether in xfs_quota > > We could filter it out in the test ... Maybe the pquota 0 problem will effect other cases except xfs/133 (maybe not, I haven't tested that). So if we think it's a case problem, we need to check all cases which report/query xfs project quota. So I should wait for the decision about how to deal with GETNEXTQUOTA on project quota. Thanks, Zorro > > -Eric > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
