On 12/7/23 17:41, Filipe Manana wrote:
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.
Testing on a 64K pagesize. Will run it. Apologies for intermittent
responses; OOO until December 21.
Thanks Anand
Thanks.
change-id: 20231204-btrfs-raid-75975797f97d
Best regards,
--
Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@xxxxxxx>
