On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:24:34AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:42:36AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > > At 11/10/2016 10:19 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:34:20AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > At 11/09/2016 05:43 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:24:38AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > > At 11/08/2016 06:58 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:15:15PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > We should use helpers and not open-code when helpers are available. So > > > > > we should really use _scratch_mkfs_sized here. > > > > > > > > > > And "-n 64k" is only to make bug easier to reproduce, but I don't think > > > > > it's necessary. In my testings, 50%-75% runs hit the ENOSPC failure on > > > > > my x86_64 test vm, even I removed the "-n 64k" mkfs option from the > > > > > test. > > > > > > > > > > So I'd say remove "-n 64k" and test whatever mkfs options user > > > > > specified. > > > > > > > > I really don't like the idea to allow user to override any mount > > > > option to reduce the possibility. > > > > > > That's not the point. Overriding mount options reduces test coverage > > > because it limits the test to only the exact configuration that > > > reproduced the bug that was seen. If a user is testing a specific > > > configuration, then we really want to run the test on that config. > > > > > > > And further more, this testcase is not a generic test, but a > > > > regression/pinpoint test to expose one specific bug. > > > > > > If you want to make sure that the bug doesn't return, then you need > > > to run the /entire test suite/ with the configuration that exposes > > > the problem. You wouldn't be suggesting this specific set of mount > > > options if users weren't using that configuration. Hence you really > > > need to run the entire test suite with that configuration to make > > > sure you haven't broken those user's systems.... > > > > > > And, yes, I test lots of different XFS configurations in their > > > entirity every day on every change I make or review, so I'm not > > > suggesting that you should do anything I don't already do. > > > > OK, most of your points makes sense. > > I'll update the case. > > > > And I want to make it clear, doesn it mean, newly submitted test case > > shouldn't specify any mkfs/mount option? > > My understanding is that if test needs a extremely rare configuration to > hit a bug, then it should specify mkfs/mount options, e.g. xfs/297 tests > a bug in XFS only in very specific configuration: > > _scratch_mkfs_xfs -d agcount=16,su=256k,sw=12 -l su=256k,size=5120b >/dev/null 2>&1 Yes, but there's a key reason we can do this for /XFS/. I point this out every time this comes up: We can do this with /XFS/ because the *implementation of _scratch_mkfs_xfs()* has a fallback strategy on failure. That is, _scratch_mkfs_xfs will first try to make the filesystems with $MKFS_OPTIONS + $TEST_SUPPLIED_OPTIONS. If that fails, it then runs mkfs with just $TEST_SUPPLIED_OPTIONS. IOWs, XFS always tries to use the global options, and only removes them when there is a problem combining them with $TEST_SUPPLIED_OPTIONS. This is how custom test options should be applied for all filesystems, not just XFS. It gets rid of the need for any test to care about MKFS_OPTIONS. What we are also missing is that we need to apply this process to scratch mount options as we don't do it for any filesystem. That will get rid of the need for tests to care about what is in MOUNT_OPTIONS, too... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
