On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 01:32:42AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:34:04PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > fstests includes decent functional tests for online growfs and > > shrink, and decent stress tests for crash and log recovery, but no > > combination of the two. This test combines bits from a typical > > growfs stress test like xfs/104 with crash recovery cycles from a > > test like generic/388. As a result, this reproduces at least a > > couple recently fixed issues related to log recovery of online > > growfs operations. > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Hi Brian, > > Thanks for this new test case! Some tiny review points below :) > > > tests/xfs/609 | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/xfs/609.out | 7 +++++ > > 2 files changed, 76 insertions(+) > > create mode 100755 tests/xfs/609 > > create mode 100644 tests/xfs/609.out > > ... > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/609.out b/tests/xfs/609.out > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000..1853cc65 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tests/xfs/609.out > > @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ > > +QA output created by 609 > > +meta-data=DDEV isize=XXX agcount=N, agsize=XXX blks > > +data = bsize=XXX blocks=XXX, imaxpct=PCT > > + = sunit=XXX swidth=XXX, unwritten=X > > +naming =VERN bsize=XXX > > +log =LDEV bsize=XXX blocks=XXX > > +realtime =RDEV extsz=XXX blocks=XXX, rtextents=XXX > > So what's this output in .out file for? How about "Silence is golden"? > No particular reason.. this was mostly a mash and cleanup of a couple preexisting tests around growfs and crash recovery, so probably just leftover from that. All of these suggestions sound good to me. I'll apply them and post a v2. Thanks for the review! Brian > Thanks, > Zorro > > > -- > > 2.46.2 > > > > >
