On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 05:32:54PM +0000, fdmanana@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
>
> After commit 8973af00ec21 ("fstests: cleanup fsstress process management")
> test cases btrfs/007 and btrfs/284 started to fail. For example:
>
> $ ./check btrfs/007
> FSTYP -- btrfs
> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 debian0 6.13.0-rc1-btrfs-next-181+ #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue Dec 3 13:03:23 WET 2024
> MKFS_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdc
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdc /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1
>
> btrfs/007 1s ... [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch (see /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests/results//btrfs/007.out.bad)
> --- tests/btrfs/007.out 2020-06-10 19:29:03.810518987 +0100
> +++ /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests/results//btrfs/007.out.bad 2024-12-10 16:09:56.345937619 +0000
> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> QA output created by 007
> *** test send / receive
> -*** done
> +failed: '2097152000 200'
> +(see /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests/results//btrfs/007.full for details)
> ...
> (Run 'diff -u /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests/tests/btrfs/007.out /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests/results//btrfs/007.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
> Ran: btrfs/007
>
> The problem comes from _run_fsstress and _run_fsstress_bg using $*, which
> splits the string argument for the -x command used by btrfs/007, so that
> fsstress gets the argument for -x as simply:
>
> "btrfs"
>
> Instead of:
>
> "btrfs subvolume snapshot -r $SCRATCH_MNT $SCRATCH_MNT/base"
>
> Fix this by using "$@" instead of $*.
>
> Fixes: 8973af00ec21 ("fstests: cleanup fsstress process management")
> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> common/rc | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
> index 1b2e4508..f4fff59b 100644
> --- a/common/rc
> +++ b/common/rc
> @@ -78,13 +78,13 @@ _kill_fsstress()
> _run_fsstress_bg()
> {
> cp -f $FSSTRESS_PROG $_FSSTRESS_PROG
> - $_FSSTRESS_PROG $FSSTRESS_AVOID $* >> $seqres.full 2>&1 &
> + $_FSSTRESS_PROG $FSSTRESS_AVOID "$@" >> $seqres.full 2>&1 &
> _FSSTRESS_PID=$!
> }
>
> _run_fsstress()
> {
> - _run_fsstress_bg $*
> + _run_fsstress_bg "$@"
> _wait_for_fsstress
> return $?
> }
Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
