On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 9:03 AM Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Add tests for btrfs' raid-stripe-tree feature. All of these test work by > writing a specific pattern to a newly created filesystem and afterwards > using `btrfs inspect-internal -t raid-stripe $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL` to verify > the placement and the layout of the metadata. > > The md5sum of each file will be compared as well after a re-mount of the > filesystem. > > --- > Changes in v5: > - add _require_btrfs_free_space_tree helper and use in tests > - Link to v4: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231206-btrfs-raid-v4-0-578284dd3a70@xxxxxxx > > Changes in v4: > - add _require_btrfs_no_compress to all tests > - add _require_btrfs_no_nodatacow helper and add to btrfs/308 > - add _require_btrfs_feature "free_space_tree" to all tests > - Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231205-btrfs-raid-v3-0-0e857a5439a2@xxxxxxx > > Changes in v3: > - added 'raid-stripe-tree' to mkfs options, as only zoned raid gets it > automatically > - Rename test cases as btrfs/302 and btrfs/303 already exist upstream > - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231205-btrfs-raid-v2-0-25f80eea345b@xxxxxxx > > Changes in v2: > - Re-ordered series so the newly introduced group is added before the > tests > - Changes Filipe requested to the tests. > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231204-btrfs-raid-v1-0-b254eb1bcff8@xxxxxxx > > --- > Johannes Thumshirn (9): > fstests: doc: add new raid-stripe-tree group > common: add filter for btrfs raid-stripe dump > common: add _require_btrfs_no_nodatacow helper > common: add _require_btrfs_free_space_tree > btrfs: add fstest for stripe-tree metadata with 4k write > btrfs: add fstest for 8k write spanning two stripes on raid-stripe-tree > btrfs: add fstest for writing to a file at an offset with RST > btrfs: add fstests to write 128k to a RST filesystem > btrfs: add fstest for overwriting a file partially with RST > > common/btrfs | 17 +++++++++ > common/filter.btrfs | 14 +++++++ > doc/group-names.txt | 1 + > tests/btrfs/304 | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/btrfs/304.out | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/btrfs/305 | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/btrfs/305.out | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/btrfs/306 | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/btrfs/306.out | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/btrfs/307 | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/btrfs/307.out | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/btrfs/308 | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/btrfs/308.out | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 13 files changed, 710 insertions(+) > --- > base-commit: baca8a2b5cb6e798ce3a07e79a081031370c6cb8 Btw this base commit does not exist in the official fstests repo. That commit is from the staging branch at https://github.com/kdave/xfstests A "git am" will fail because the official fstests repo doesn't have _require_btrfs_no_block_group_tree() at common/btrfs, so it needs to be manually adjusted when applying the 3rd patch. I tried the tests and they look good, so: Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx> One question I missed before. Test 304 for example does a 4K write and expects in the golden output to get a 4K raid stripe item. What happens on a machine with 64K page size? There the default sector size is 64K, will the write result in a 64K raid stripe item or will it be 4K? In the former case, it will make the test fail. Thanks. > change-id: 20231204-btrfs-raid-75975797f97d > > Best regards, > -- > Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@xxxxxxx> > >
