on 2022/07/04 23:42, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:30:02PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
>> Currently, this case fails on old xfsprogs as below:
>> +/var/lib/xfstests/tests/xfs/270: line 51: [: !=: unary operator expected
>>
>> Getting ro_compat value will report the following error after setting new ro_compat
>> value:
>> +cache_purge: shake on cache 0x56033fde4920 left 1 nodes!?
>> +cache_purge: shake on cache 0x56033fde4920 left 1 nodes!?
>> +cache_zero_check: refcount is 1, not zero (node=0x56033fdf9110
>>
>> Old xfsprogs miss a bugfix
>> f4afdcb0ad ("xfs_db: clean up the salvage read callsites in set_cur()").
>>
>> Here we skip the get step of new ro_comap value when nrext64 feature is supported.
>> Also will add a new test to cover this xfsprog bug.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> tests/xfs/270 | 23 ++++++++++++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/xfs/270 b/tests/xfs/270
>> index b740c379..5ff83ead 100755
>> --- a/tests/xfs/270
>> +++ b/tests/xfs/270
>> @@ -22,6 +22,10 @@ _require_scratch_nocheck
>> # Only V5 XFS disallow rw mount/remount with unknown ro-compat features
>> _require_scratch_xfs_crc
>>
>> +nrext64_supported=0
>> +_scratch_mkfs_xfs_supported -m crc=1 -i nrext64> /dev/null 2>&1&& \
>> + nrext64_supported=1
>> +
>> _scratch_mkfs_xfs>>$seqres.full 2>&1
>>
>> # set the highest bit of features_ro_compat, use it as an unknown
>> @@ -43,13 +47,18 @@ ro_compat=$(echo $ro_compat | \
>> _scratch_xfs_set_metadata_field "features_ro_compat" "$ro_compat" "sb 0" \
>> > $seqres.full 2>&1
>>
>> -# read the newly set ro compat filed for verification
>> -new_ro_compat=$(_scratch_xfs_get_metadata_field "features_ro_compat" "sb 0" \
>> - 2>/dev/null)
>> -
>> -# verify the new ro_compat field is correct.
>> -if [ $new_ro_compat != $ro_compat ]; then
>
> My personal opinion is -- change above line as:
> if [ "$new_ro_compat" != "$ro_compat" ]
> to avoid the bash syntax error. Then the failure (on old xfsprogs) correspond
> to a known xfsprogs bug. That's good enough.
Ok, will do it on v2. Thanks.
Best Regards
Yang Xu
>
> Thanks,
> Zorro
>
>> - echo "Unable to set new features_ro_compat. Wanted $ro_compat, got $new_ro_compat"
>> +# Indeed, xfsprogs has a bug here and fixed by commit f4afdcb
>> +# ("xfs_db: clean up the salvage read callsites in set_cur()")
>> +# Here, we use nrext64 feature as a proxy.
>> +if [ $nrext64_supported -eq 1 ]; then
>> + # read the newly set ro compat filed for verification
>> + new_ro_compat=$(_scratch_xfs_get_metadata_field "features_ro_compat" \
>> + "sb 0" 2>/dev/null)
>> + # verify the new ro_compat field is correct.
>> + if [ $new_ro_compat != $ro_compat ]; then
>> + echo "Unable to set new features_ro_compat. Wanted $ro_compat, \
>> + got $new_ro_compat"
>> + fi
>> fi
>>
>> # rw mount with unknown ro-compat feature should fail
>> --
>> 2.27.0
>>
>
