On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 07:40:10PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > I'll send an xfstest but it'd be really great if could could work > inside the xfstests framework when devising testcases... If you could put together an xfstests, that would be great. I hadn't because Mike's been trying to remind me that I really need to delegate to others :-), and we do have someone at Google who can put the xfstest script together. You can probably do it faster than he can, though. I didn't use xfs_io because I don't know how to use it, and because it's not one of those things which is regularly on our production machines that we use for testing. I probably start exploring all of the things that can be done with it, though! > Ted, is just checking for fs corruption is enough or do you think a > test needs the debugfs stat inspection step? It'd be easy enough > to special-case a debugfs step for ext4. Well, if we end up suppressing the EOFBLOCKS_FL test e2fsck (which is what we've already done as an emergency workaround) we can't count on e2fsck detecting the problem, which is why I phrased this the way I did for Aditya's benefit. > > What I normally do is run it something like this: > > > > mount /scratch ; pushd /scratch; ~/testcase <opts>; popd ; umount /scratch ; debugfs /dev/sdc1 -R "stat test-file" > > > > What to look for is whether the flags field is either 0x480000 or > > 0x80000. The 0x400000 flag is the EOFBLOCKS_FL flag. If last extent > > is uninitialized, then the EOFBLOCKS_FL flag should be set. > > only if that last extent is past i_size, though... Good point, and I guess I did have at least one test case where that wasn't true. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
