Hi Zorro, On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:32 PM Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 04:40:56PM +0800, bxue@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Boyang Xue <bxue@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Regression test for: > > > > ext4: Fix tune2fs checksum failure for mounted filesystem > > Better to specify the commit id number. I saw Ted has applied that patch: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/162895105421.460437.8931255765382647790.b4-ty@xxxxxxx/ Thanks. I see the commit id e905fbe3fd0fdb90052f6efdf88f50a78833cfe7 in the above URL. I didn't add it since I'm not sure if this id will be the final id when the commit is finally merged to the mainline kernel (Linus tree)? > > And maybe you can describe *a little* more in commit log. Yes I can add a few words in the commit log, but actually I expect the reader of this test reads the commit message of the mentioned commit "ext4: Fix tune2fs checksum failure for mounted filesystem", which I think is more precise. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Boyang Xue <bxue@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Hi, > > > > This is a new regression test for the patch > > > > ``` > > ext4: Fix tune2fs checksum failure for mounted filesystem > > > > Commit 81414b4dd48 ("ext4: remove redundant sb checksum recomputation") > > removed checksum recalculation after updating superblock free space / > > inode counters in ext4_fill_super() based on the fact that we will > > recalculate the checksum on superblock writeout. That is correct > > assumption but until the writeout happens (which can take a long time) > > the checksum is incorrect in the buffer cache and if tune2fs is called > > in that time window it will complain. So return back the checksum > > recalculation and add a comment explaining the tune2fs peculiarity. > > > > Fixes: 81414b4dd48f ("ext4: remove redundant sb checksum recomputation") > > Reported-by: Boyang Xue <bxue@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > > ``` > > > > It's expected to fail on kernels from the kernel-5.11-rc1 to the latest > > version, where tune2fs fails with: > > > > ``` > > tune2fs 1.46.2 (28-Feb-2021) > > tune2fs: Superblock checksum does not match superblock while trying to > > open /dev/loop0 > > Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock. > > ``` > > > > Please help review this test, Thanks! > > > > -Boyang > > > > tests/ext4/309 | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/ext4/309.out | 2 ++ > > 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+) > > create mode 100755 tests/ext4/309 > > create mode 100644 tests/ext4/309.out > > > > diff --git a/tests/ext4/309 b/tests/ext4/309 > > new file mode 100755 > > index 00000000..ae335617 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tests/ext4/309 > > @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ > > +#! /bin/bash > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > +# Copyright (c) 2021 YOUR NAME HERE. All Rights Reserved. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Write your copyright I will correct it in the next version. Thanks. > > > +# > > +# FS QA Test 309 > > +# > > +# Test that tune2fs doesn't fail after ext4 shutdown > > +# Regression test for commit: > > +# ext4: Fix tune2fs checksum failure for mounted filesystem > > +# > > +. ./common/preamble > > +_begin_fstest auto rw quick > > + > > +_cleanup() > > +{ > > + _scratch_unmount > > +} > > I think the umount isn't necessary, so the specific _cleanup isn't > needed either. The $SCRATCH_DEV was still mounted before this _cleanup(), so I'm wondering why we shouldn't do _scratch_unmount here? And I see at least another similar structured test ext4/306 do _scratch_unmount in _cleanup(). > > > + > > +# Import common functions. > > +. ./common/filter > > Do you use any filter helpers below? No. I will remove this line in my next version. > > > + > > +# real QA test starts here > > +_supported_fs ext4 > > I'm wondering if this case can be a generic case, there's nothing > ext4 specified operations, except this line: > > "$TUNE2FS_PROG -l $SCRATCH_DEV" > > Hmm... if we can change this line to something likes _get_fs_super(), > it might help to make this test to be a generic test. I think this bug is heavily related to "tune2fs", ext4 only. So I guess an ext4 only test is enough? > > > +_require_scratch > > +_require_scratch_shutdown > > +_require_command "$TUNE2FS_PROG" tune2fs > > + > > +echo "Silence is golden" > > + > > +_scratch_mkfs >/dev/null 2>&1 > > +_scratch_mount > > +echo "ext4/309" > $SCRATCH_MNT/309.tmp > > It's sure this case will be "ext4/309", although you use "309" won't > affect anything. Yes I can rename it to something like ext4-309.tmp if it looks better. > > > +_scratch_shutdown > > +_scratch_cycle_mount > > +$TUNE2FS_PROG -l $SCRATCH_DEV >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > +if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then > > + status=0 > > +else > > + status=1 > > +fi > > Don't need to change the status value, how about write as: > > $TUNE2FS_PROG -l $SCRATCH_DEV >/dev/null > > The error output will break the golden image directly. How did you test that? The error output didn't break the "golden image" in my test. > > ( cc ext4 mailist, to get more review) > > Thanks, > Zorro Thanks for review! -Boyang > > > + > > +exit > > diff --git a/tests/ext4/309.out b/tests/ext4/309.out > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000..56330d65 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tests/ext4/309.out > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > > +QA output created by 309 > > +Silence is golden > > -- > > 2.27.0 > > >
