At 11/30/2016 05:01 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 03:32:54PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Old btrfs qgroup test cases uses fix golden output numbers, which limits
the coverage since they can't handle mount options like compress or
inode_map, and cause false alert.
Introduce _btrfs_check_scratch_qgroup() function to check qgroup
correctness using "btrfs check --qgroup-report" function, which will
follow the way kernel handle qgroup and are proved very reliable.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
common/rc | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
index 8c99306..35d2d56 100644
--- a/common/rc
+++ b/common/rc
@@ -3018,6 +3018,25 @@ _require_deletable_scratch_dev_pool()
done
}
+# We check if "btrfs check" support to check qgroup correctness
+# Old fixed golden output can cover case like compress and inode_map
+# mount options, which limits the coverage
+_require_btrfs_check_qgroup()
+{
+ _require_command "$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG" btrfs
+ output=$($BTRFS_UTIL_PROG check --help | grep "qgroup-report")
+ if [ -z "$output" ]; then
+ _notrun "$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG too old (must support 'check --qgroup-report')"
+ fi
+}
Why wouldn't this just set a global variable that you then
check in _check_scratch_fs and run the _btrfs_check_scratch_qgroup()
call then?
The problem is, "btrfs check --qgroup-report" will do force report, even
for case like qgroup rescan still running.
Some test, like btrfs/114 which tests rescan, false report will cause
problem.
So here I choose the manually checking other than always do it at
_check_scratch_fs().
What about all the tests that currently run without this
functionality being present? They will now notrun rather than use
the golden output match - this seems like a regression to me,
especially for distro QE testing older kernel/progs combinations...
In fact, the support of qgroup-report is introduced much earlier.
It's about v3.14.
For other fs, old tool combination would be OK, but for fs like btrfs, I
don't think that's sane.
Although I could exclude these fixed golden output in next version for
now, until we have a good agreement on the behavior.
BTW, currently btrfs qgroup test cases are already using "btrfs check
--qgroup-report" in newer test cases.
Even without checking for the support of --qgroup-report option.
So it should already cause a lot of problem for any btrfs-progs earlier
than v3.14.
But at least I didn't see such report in fstests ML.
Thanks,
Qu
+
+_btrfs_check_scratch_qgroup()
+{
+ _require_btrfs_check_qgroup
This needs to go in the test itself before the test is run,
not get hidden in a function call at the end of the test.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
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
