在 2024/2/26 16:58, Anand Jain 写道:
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 for the review and merge, although I'd also like to get some
feedback from the original author, to make sure there are not some weird
use case.
Thanks,
Qu
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
