On 2/26/24 09:32, Qu Wenruo wrote:
For "btrfs subvolume snapshot -i <qgroupid>", we only expect the target
qgroup to be a higher level one.
Assigning a 0 level qgroup to another 0 level qgroup is only going to
cause confusion, and I'm planning to do extra sanity checks both in
kernel and btrfs-progs to reject such behavior.
So change the test case to do regular higher level qgroup assignment
only.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
looks good.
Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@xxxxxxxxxx>
Applied to
https://github.com/asj/fstests.git for-next
Thanks, Anand
---
tests/btrfs/224 | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/btrfs/224 b/tests/btrfs/224
index de10942f..611df3ab 100755
--- a/tests/btrfs/224
+++ b/tests/btrfs/224
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ assign_no_shared_test()
_check_scratch_fs
}
-# Test snapshot with assigning qgroup for submodule
+# Test snapshot with assigning qgroup for higher level qgroup
snapshot_test()
{
_scratch_mkfs > /dev/null 2>&1
@@ -78,9 +78,9 @@ snapshot_test()
_qgroup_rescan $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full
$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG subvolume create $SCRATCH_MNT/a >> $seqres.full
+ $BTRFS_UTIL_PROG qgroup create 1/0 $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full
_ddt of="$SCRATCH_MNT"/a/file1 bs=1M count=1 >> $seqres.full 2>&1
- subvolid=$(_btrfs_get_subvolid $SCRATCH_MNT a)
- $BTRFS_UTIL_PROG subvolume snapshot -i 0/$subvolid $SCRATCH_MNT/a $SCRATCH_MNT/b >> $seqres.full
+ $BTRFS_UTIL_PROG subvolume snapshot -i 1/0 $SCRATCH_MNT/a $SCRATCH_MNT/b >> $seqres.full
_scratch_unmount
_check_scratch_fs
