Hi Amir,
Thanks for your comments. :-)
Could you tell me which patch has fixed the ext4 bug?
On 2017/09/11 19:03, Amir Goldstein wrote:
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Xiao Yang<yangx.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On RHEL6.9GA, this case could not emulate a crash and passed due
to unsupported collapse_range and zero_range instead of no bug.
We added check for fallocate flags to avoid confusion.
I am not sure I understand the confusion.
A bug was allegedly introduced to ext4 when introducing
collapse_range and/or insert_range and this is a regression test
for this alleged regression.
In what way is it confusing that the test passes on an old kernel?
There are a lot of tests in xfstests that test for regressions that
were introduced by commit XYZ. I don't see those tests checking
that they are running on kernel> XYZ.
BTW, this test also passes on btrfs and xfs, but it does not include
_supported_fs ext4 against confusion.
On an old kernel(e.g. RHEL6.9GA), the test passed and got the following
message in ext4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# /var/lib/xfstests/ltp/fsx -d --replay-ops /tmp/733.fsxops
--record-ops=/tmp/733.dupops /mnt/xfstests/scratch/testfile
main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE,
disabling!
main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode
FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE, disabling!
main: filesystem does not support fallocate mode FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE,
disabling!
1 write 0x137dd thru 0x21445 (0xdc69 bytes)
fallocating to largest ever: 0x16ade
2 falloc from 0xb531 to 0x16ade (0xb5ad bytes)
4 write 0x3e5ec thru 0x3ffff (0x1a14 bytes)
6 mapwrite 0x216ad thru 0x23dfb (0x274f bytes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We skip collapse_range and zero_range operations and cannot trigger the
expected bug in ext4.
I want to distinguish between unsupported flags and no bug. Do you
think it needs to distinguish?
Signed-off-by: Xiao Yang<yangx.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
tests/generic/456 | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tests/generic/456 b/tests/generic/456
index 8debd3f..b72acea 100755
--- a/tests/generic/456
+++ b/tests/generic/456
@@ -67,11 +67,16 @@ write 0x3e5ec 0x1a14 0x21446
zero_range 0x20fac 0x6d9c 0x40000 keep_size
mapwrite 0x216ad 0x274f 0x40000
EOF
-run_check $here/ltp/fsx -d --replay-ops $fsxops $SCRATCH_MNT/testfile
+touch $tmp.dupops
+run_check $here/ltp/fsx -d --replay-ops $fsxops --record-ops=$tmp.dupops $SCRATCH_MNT/testfile
_flakey_drop_and_remount
_unmount_flakey
_cleanup_flakey
+
+ops_name=$(awk '/skip/ {printf "%s ", $2}' $tmp.dupops)
+[ -n "$ops_name" ]&& _notrun "fallocate does not support $ops_name"
+
If you must add some check, please add
_require_xfs_io_command "fcollapse"
_require_xfs_io_command "fzero"
It is not really a must for this test and its not even really testing if fs
supports those commands, but that is de-facto standard for not
running fcollapse/fzero tests.
IMO, _require_xfs_io_command only check if xfs_io command supports
collapse_range or zero_range,
and it does not mean that fallocate(2) supports collapse_range or
zero_range.
I am not sure it is necessary to add some check.
Thanks,
Xiao Yang.
Thanks,
Amir.
--
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
