On 2/19/16 11:07 AM, Zirong Lang wrote: > > > ----- 原始邮件 ----- >> 发件人: "Zirong Lang" <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> >> 收件人: "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> 抄送: "Dave Chinner" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, eguan@xxxxxxxxxx >> 发送时间: 星期六, 2016年 2 月 20日 上午 12:52:07 >> 主题: Re: [PATCH] xfs: change return value check to golden image check >> >> >> >> ----- 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. > > Hi Dave, Eric > > So What do should I do, for you can merge this patch? > > Send V2, add 'grep $qa_project'? > > Send V2, add project quota 0 output into 133.out ? > > Send another patch, add a common filter to filter project quota 0, and > try to find and modify all related cases? Let's decide what the right thing to do in kernelspace/userspace is first, then we can adjust tests if needed. -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
