On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 9:17 AM Anand Jain <anand.jain@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/8/23 16:47, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 04:03:57PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> >> On 07/03/2023 19:38, fdmanana@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> This test may often fail when running with btrfs-progs versions not very
> >>> recent. The corresponding git commits in btrfs-progs that fix issues
> >>> uncovered by this test are:
> >>>
> >>> 1) 6f4a51886b37 ("btrfs-progs: receive: fix silent data loss after fall back from encoded write")
> >>> Introduced in btrfs-progs v6.0.2;
> >>>
> >>> 2) e3209f8792f4 ("btrfs-progs: receive: fix a corruption when decompressing zstd extents"")
> >>> Introduced in btrfs-progs v6.2.
> >>>
> >>> So add the corresponding _fixed_by_git_commit calls to the test.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> tests/btrfs/284 | 5 +++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/284 b/tests/btrfs/284
> >>> index 0d31e5d9..c6692668 100755
> >>> --- a/tests/btrfs/284
> >>> +++ b/tests/btrfs/284
> >>> @@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ _require_test
> >>> _require_scratch_size $(($LOAD_FACTOR * 1 * 1024 * 1024))
> >>> _require_fssum
> >>> +_fixed_by_git_commit btrfs-progs e3209f8792f4 \
> >>> + "btrfs-progs: receive: fix a corruption when decompressing zstd extents"
> >>> +_fixed_by_git_commit btrfs-progs 6f4a51886b37 \
> >>> + "btrfs-progs: receive: fix silent data loss after fall back from encoded write"
> >>> +
> >>> send_files_dir=$TEST_DIR/btrfs-test-$seq
> >>> rm -fr $send_files_dir
> >>
> >>
> >> Along with this, why not check the btrfs-progs version using
> >> 'btrfs --version' and call _not_run()?
> >
> > Does this case expose some known bugs, right? Or the failures due to some
> > features missing?
> >
>
> It tests for a bug.
The test is meant to be a generic stress test for send v2 streams.
It happens to have uncovered 2 bugs (so far). And if it finds out more
bugs in the future, I'll surely list more commits in it.
So I don't get where you got the idea to skip running a test based on
the btrfs-progs version.
We don't do that anywhere in fstests, neither for btrfs-progs nor
kernel or anything else. The reason was already pointed out to you:
distros, vendors, often backport commits to older versions - working
for a company with a distro, I would expect you to be familiar with
that :)
Thanks.
>
> > If this case uncovers some known issues, then the failure is expected on unfixed
> > version. We should let the failure exposing, not hide it by _notrun.
>
> Makes sense.
>
> > And the package version is not a good way to jundge if a issue is fixed or a
> > feature is merged. Due to many downstream packages might merge some upstream
> > patches independently.
> >
>
> Yeah, I agree. You can guarantee that if btrfs-progs is plain vanilla.
>
> Looks good as it is.
>
> Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks, Anand
>
> > Thanks,
> > Zorro
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks, Anand
> >>
> >
