On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 8:41 AM Anand Jain <anand.jain@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/28/24 01:11, fdmanana@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx> > > > > Now that there's a helper to kill a background process that is running > > _btrfs_stress_balance(), use it in btrfs/028. It's equivalent to the > > existing code in btrfs/028. > > > > Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/btrfs/028 | 9 +++------ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/btrfs/028 b/tests/btrfs/028 > > index d860974e..8fbe8887 100755 > > --- a/tests/btrfs/028 > > +++ b/tests/btrfs/028 > > @@ -44,12 +44,9 @@ balance_pid=$! > > > > # 30s is enough to trigger bug > > sleep $((30*$TIME_FACTOR)) > > -kill $fsstress_pid $balance_pid &> /dev/null > > -wait > > - > > -# kill _btrfs_stress_balance can't end balance, so call btrfs balance cancel > > -# to cancel running or paused balance. > -$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG balance cancel $SCRATCH_MNT &> /dev/null > > +kill $fsstress_pid &> /dev/null > > +wait $fsstress_pid &> /dev/null > > +_btrfs_kill_stress_balance_pid $balance_pid > > I didn't understand the point of replacing 'balance cancel' > with 'kill'. The Git change log also doesn't say anything > about it. The old code also tested BTRFS_IOC_BALANCE_CTL ioctl. The point is to use the helper to kill the background task running balance in a loop, so for every _btrfs_stress_balance() call we have a matching _btrfs_kill_stress_balance_pid(). Doing the kill + cancel is equivalent to what the helper does, and the goal of the test is not to exercise the balance cancel. Thanks. > > Thanks, Anand > > > > _run_btrfs_util_prog filesystem sync $SCRATCH_MNT > > >
