On 02/23/2013 05:37 PM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:03:25 -0500, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 09:17:57PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: >>> >>> 301'th xfstests are failed due to : >>> commit d100eef2440fea13e4f09e88b1c8bcbca64beb9f >>> Author: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Date: Mon Feb 18 00:29:59 2013 -0500 >>> >>> ext4: lookup block mapping in extent status tree >>> >>> TESTCASE: https://github.com/dmonakhov/xfstests/commit/7b7efeee30a41109201e2040034e71db9b66ddc0 >> >> Thanks for the heads up. I haven't updatied the xfstests I've been >> using yet, since I want to make sure I'm comparing apples and oranges >> during the merge window when I'm checking for regressions; I'll update >> my xfstests in a week or two after the merge window settles down, and >> then I'll rerun my baseline tests using the updated xfstests against >> 3.8.0 and 3.9-rc2 or 3.9-rc3. >> >> (And furthermore, these new xfstests aren't yet in xfstests upstream >> yet, right? Any comments from the xfstests maintainer about whether >> they are going to be willing to take your proposed new test cases?) > I hope so. I think i've fixed things according to Dave's commit. >> So when you say this is a regression, I take it that this test #301 >> doesn't fail on commit d100eef2440f^, but it does fail on d100eef2440f, >> correct? > Correct. d100ee is the first bad commit which trigger BUGON() > But issue was introduced earlier es_cache was not updated > after extents was swapped between inodes. Yes, you are right. I forgot to update status tree after we do a defragmentation. > I'll prepare patch soon. Ah, thanks. So I will wait your patch. > Actually I think that the regression in 269'th you have found recently > caused by similar issue and commit which you foud by bisecting ( the one > which allow migration between indirect<->extent based inodes) > simply helps to spot real issue in es_caching code. I will revise this patch. IIRC, we forgot to update status tree after an inode is migrated from extent-based to indirect-based. Thanks for pointing out. > > BUT my main idea is that we need robust self-testing infrastructure > similar one that we have at the time extents was introduced to ext4. Could you please share more detailed with me? Extents had been introduced for a long time ago. I have missed too many things. Thanks, - Zheng -- 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
