On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:20:46AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:04:11PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > In this test we use fsstress to create some number of files and then > > exercise xfsdump/xfsrestore on them. Depending on the fsstress config > > we may end up with a different number of files than is hardcoded in the > > golden output (particularly after adding reflink support to fsstress) > > and thereby fail the test. Since we're not really testing how many > > files fsstress can create, just turn the counts into XXX/YYY. > > Hmmmm. those numbers were in the golden output specifically because > fsstress is supposed to be deterministic for a given random seed. > What it is supposed to be testing is that xfsdump actually dumped > all the files that were created, and xfs-restore was able to process > them all. If either barf on a file, they'll silently skip it, and > the numbers won't come out properly. > > The typical class of bug this test finds is bulkstat iteration > problems - if bulkstat misses an inode it shouldn't, then the > xfsrestore numbers come out wrong. By making the data set > non-deterministic and not checking the numbers, we end up losing the > ability of this test to check bulkstat iteration and dump/restore > completeness.... Ah, fun. Ok, in that case I think the correct fix for this problem is to turn off clonerange/deduperange in the fsstress command line so that we get back to deterministic(?) counts... ...unless a better solution to count the number of dirs/files and compare to whatever xfsrestore says? --D > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
