On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 11:56:13PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 09:22:59PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > Add basic test to make sure the functionality works as expected. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/xfs/990 | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/xfs/990.out | 12 ++++++++++ > > tests/xfs/group | 1 + > > 3 files changed, 72 insertions(+) > > create mode 100755 tests/xfs/990 > > create mode 100644 tests/xfs/990.out > > > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/990 b/tests/xfs/990 > > new file mode 100755 > > index 00000000..551c4784 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tests/xfs/990 > > @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ > > +#! /bin/bash > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > +# Copyright (c) 2021 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved. > > +# > > +# FS QA Test 990 > > +# > > +# XFS shrinkfs basic functionality test > > +# > > +# This test attempts to shrink with a small size (512K), half AG size and > > +# an out-of-bound size (agsize + 1) to observe if it works as expected. > > +# > > +seq=`basename $0` > > +seqres=$RESULT_DIR/$seq > > +echo "QA output created by $seq" > > + > > +here=`pwd` > > +tmp=/tmp/$$ > > +status=1 # failure is the default! > > +trap "rm -f $tmp.*; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15 > > + > > +# get standard environment, filters and checks > > +. ./common/rc > > +. ./common/filter > > + > > +# real QA test starts here > > +_supported_fs xfs > > _require_scratch Will fix. > > > +_require_xfs_shrink > > + > > +rm -f $seqres.full > > +echo "Format and mount" > > +size="$((512 * 1024 * 1024))" > > Is the fixed size necessary? Is that better to let testers run this test with > their different device/XFS geometry. I'm fine with either way since it's a simple functionality test, yet for most common cases, stratch devices are somewhat large. I tend to use a relative controllable small value. Actually, this case was from xfs/127 with some modification. > > > +_scratch_mkfs -dsize=$size -dagcount=3 2>&1 | \ > > + tee -a $seqres.full | _filter_mkfs 2>$tmp.mkfs > > +. $tmp.mkfs > > +_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > + > > +echo "Shrink fs (small size)" > > +$XFS_GROWFS_PROG -D $((dblocks-512*1024/dbsize)) $SCRATCH_MNT \ > > + >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || echo failure > > +_scratch_cycle_mount > > I don't understand the XFS Shrink new feature that much, is the "cycle_mount" > necessary? If it's not, can we get more chances to find bugs without > "cycle_mount", or with a fsck? maybe it's useful to test unmount here. Yeah, I think it's better to try fsck here. Good idea. > > Another question is, should we verify the new size after shrink? Yeah, will add xfs_info. > > > + > > +echo "Shrink fs (half AG)" > > +$XFS_GROWFS_PROG -D $((dblocks-agsize/2)) $SCRATCH_MNT \ > > + >> $seqres.full 2>&1 || echo failure > > +_scratch_cycle_mount > > + > > +echo "Shrink fs (out-of-bound)" > > +$XFS_GROWFS_PROG -D $((dblocks-agsize-1)) $SCRATCH_MNT \ > > + >> $seqres.full 2>&1 && echo failure > > +_scratch_cycle_mount > > + > > +$XFS_INFO_PROG $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full > > + > > +_scratch_unmount > ^^^ > It's not necessary. ok. It seems that ./check will fsck scratch device as well. Will update it. Thanks, Gao Xiang
