David Disseldorp <ddiss@xxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Luís, > > It looks like this one is still in need of review... Ah! Thanks for reminding me about it, David! > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:34:09 +0100, Luís Henriques wrote: > >> When using a directory with 'max_bytes' quota as a base for a mount, >> statfs shall use that 'max_bytes' value as the total disk size. That >> value shall be used even when using subdirectory as base for the mount. >> >> A bug was found where, when this subdirectory also had a 'max_files' >> quota, the real filesystem size would be returned instead of the parent >> 'max_bytes' quota value. This test case verifies this bug is fixed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> tests/ceph/005 | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> tests/ceph/005.out | 2 ++ >> 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+) >> create mode 100755 tests/ceph/005 >> create mode 100644 tests/ceph/005.out >> >> diff --git a/tests/ceph/005 b/tests/ceph/005 >> new file mode 100755 >> index 000000000000..0763a235a677 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tests/ceph/005 >> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ >> +#! /bin/bash >> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> +# Copyright (C) 2022 SUSE Linux Products GmbH. All Rights Reserved. >> +# >> +# FS QA Test 005 >> +# >> +# Make sure statfs reports correct total size when: >> +# 1. using a directory with 'max_byte' quota as base for a mount >> +# 2. using a subdirectory of the above directory with 'max_files' quota >> +# >> +. ./common/preamble >> +_begin_fstest auto quick quota >> + >> +_supported_fs generic >> +_require_scratch >> + >> +_scratch_mount >> +mkdir -p $SCRATCH_MNT/quota-dir/subdir >> + >> +# set quotas >> +quota=$((1024*10000)) >> +$SETFATTR_PROG -n ceph.quota.max_bytes -v $quota $SCRATCH_MNT/quota-dir >> +$SETFATTR_PROG -n ceph.quota.max_files -v $quota $SCRATCH_MNT/quota-dir/subdir >> +_scratch_unmount >> + >> +SCRATCH_DEV=$SCRATCH_DEV/quota-dir _scratch_mount > > Aside from the standard please-quote-your-variables gripe, I'm a little Sure, I'll fix those in next iteration. > confused with the use of SCRATCH_DEV for this test. Network FSes where > mkfs isn't provided don't generally use it. Is there any way that this > could be run against TEST_DEV, or does the umount / mount complicate > things too much? When I looked at other tests doing similar things (i.e. changing the mount device during the test), they all seemed to be using SCRATCH_DEV. I guess that I could change TEST_DEV instead. I'll revisit this and see if that works. Anyway, regarding the usage of SCRATCH_DEV in cephfs, I've used several different approaches: - Use 2 different filesystems created on the same cluster, - Use 2 volumes on the same filesystem, or - Simply use 2 directories in the same filesystem. I tend to use the later most of the times, as it's easier to setup :-) Cheers, -- Luís
