At 12/08/2016 04:47 PM, Eryu Guan wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:12:13PM +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>
---
v2:
Use "${RESULT_DIR}/require_scratch.require_qgroup_report" instead of
global variant
Rebased to latest master
Replace btrfsck with $BTRFS_UTIL_PROG check.
[snip]
diff --git a/tests/btrfs/042 b/tests/btrfs/042
index 498ccc9..dc9b762 100755
--- a/tests/btrfs/042
+++ b/tests/btrfs/042
@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ _cleanup()
_supported_fs btrfs
_supported_os Linux
_require_scratch
+_require_btrfs_qgroup_report
rm -f $seqres.full
@@ -84,10 +85,7 @@ for i in `seq 10 -1 1`; do
total_written=$(($total_written+$filesize))
done
-#check if total written exceeds limit
-if [ $total_written -gt $LIMIT_SIZE ];then
- _fail "total written should be less than $LIMIT_SIZE"
-fi
+# qgroup will be checked automatically at _check_scratch_fs() by fstest
This doesn't look like an equivalent replacement, and btrfs/042 fails
for me after this update (wrong qgroup numbers) on 4.9-rc4 kernel. Is
this change intentional?
Thanks,
Eryu
Sorry, just a typo.For 042 only the _require_btrfs_qgroup_report line is
need.
I also ran the test with v4.9-rc6 with some new btrfs patches (David's
for-next branch), it ran without problem.
So the error seems to be a fixed btrfs qgroup problem.
Thanks,
Qu
--
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
