On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 6:57 AM Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 1) If underlying filesystem is ext4, the lower overlay inodes do not > have the MSB set (e.g. file ino 8590721028 = 0x2000C0004) because > ext4 has a known inode number limit of 32bit (see ovl_can_decode_fh). > 2) With nested xino feature, the nested overlay inodes have the MSB set > (e.g. file ino 9223372045445496836 = 0x80000002000C0004). > It is expected different inode numbers which casue the failure of > overlay/071, so fix this failure by removing the unneeded comparision. > > Suggested-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> In case someone is wondering why I added this comparison to the test in the first place - I have no idea. Maybe it is a remnant of a sanity test while debugging. There is no comparison between "lower" to "overlay" inode numbers in any of the variants of test overlay/017 this test is forked from. There is no requirement for those inode numbers to be the same. > --- > tests/overlay/071 | 6 +----- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/overlay/071 b/tests/overlay/071 > index ac2324c8..90770936 100755 > --- a/tests/overlay/071 > +++ b/tests/overlay/071 > @@ -194,12 +194,8 @@ mount_dirs > record_inode_numbers $SCRATCH_MNT/lowertestdir $tmp.lower.lo > record_inode_numbers $SCRATCH_MNT/uppertestdir $tmp.lower.up > > -# Compare inode numbers in lower overlay vs. nested overlay > -# With nested xino lower/lower, all inode numbers overflow xino bits and > -# d_ino/i_ino in nested overlay are the same as in lower overlay. > -check_inode_numbers $lowertestdir $tmp.lower.lo $tmp.before.lo > - > # Record inode numbers before copy up from nested upper > +record_inode_numbers $lowertestdir $tmp.before.lo > record_inode_numbers $uppertestdir $tmp.before.up > > # Copy up all files > -- > 2.25.1 > > >
