On 08.12.23 02:19, Anand Jain wrote: > > > 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! I don't have a 64k page size system to test, but I _think_ Filipe is right, that will fail. I think we should skip these tests on non 4k sectors.
