At 12/08/2016 01:27 PM, Eryu Guan wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 10:04:56AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Introduce new _require_btrfs_qgroup_report function, which will check
the accessibility to "btrfs check --qgroup-report", then set a global
flag to info _check_scratch_fs() to do extra qgroup check.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
common/rc | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
This needs rebase too.
tests/btrfs/022 | 5 +++++
tests/btrfs/028 | 5 ++---
tests/btrfs/042 | 6 ++----
tests/btrfs/099 | 1 +
tests/btrfs/104 | 20 +++++---------------
tests/btrfs/122 | 10 +++-------
tests/btrfs/123 | 5 ++---
8 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
index 1703232..bce3a09 100644
--- a/common/rc
+++ b/common/rc
@@ -2624,6 +2624,20 @@ _check_btrfs_filesystem()
mountpoint=`_umount_or_remount_ro $device`
fi
+ # Check qgroup numbers
+ if [ "$BTRFS_NEED_QGROUP_REPORT" == "yes" ];then
So we can bypass the _require_btrfs_qgroup_report check if we set
BTRFS_NEED_QGROUP_REPORT to "yes" directly, right? How about doing
something like _require_scratch do, e.g. touching some signal file in
$RESULT_DIR and only do qgroup check if that file exists?
Nice idea.
+ btrfsck $device --qgroup-report > $tmp.qgroup_report 2>&1
Shouldn't "$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG check $device ..." be used for new code? I
might be wrong on this, I think btrfsck is deprecated.
Oh, the code in common/btrfs is just too old.
I'll update them together in next version.
Thanks,
Qu
Thanks,
Eryu
--
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
