Re: [PATCH v2] xfs/191: update mkfs.xfs input results

[Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 2019/06/16 22:39, Eryu Guan wrote:

> [cc xfs list for xfs specific test]
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 04:31:41PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> > Currently, on 5.2.0-rc4+ kernel, when I run xfs/191-input-validation with upstream xfsprogs,
> > I get the following errors because mkfs.xfs binary has changed a lot.
> Lines are too long for commit log, please wrap at column 68.
>
> > --------------------------
> > PLATFORM      -- Linux/x86_64  5.2.0-rc4+
> > MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -bsize=4096 /dev/sda11
> > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/sda11 /mnt/xfstests/scratch
> But these quotes don't need to be wrapped.
>
> > pass -n size=2b /dev/sda11
> > pass -d agsize=8192b /dev/sda11
> > pass -d agsize=65536s /dev/sda11
> > pass -d su=0,sw=64 /dev/sda11
> > pass -d su=4096s,sw=64 /dev/sda11
> > pass -d su=4096b,sw=64 /dev/sda11
> > pass -l su=10b /dev/sda11
> > fail -n log=15 /dev/sda11
> > fail -r size=65536,rtdev=$fsimg /dev/sda11
> > fail -r rtdev=$fsimg /dev/sda11
> > fail -i log=10 /dev/sda11
> > --------------------------
> >
> > "pass -d su=0,sw=64 /dev/sda11", expect fail, this behavior has been fixed by commit 16adcb88:
> > (mkfs: more sunit/swidth sanity checking).
> >
> > "fail -n log=15 /dev/sda11" "fail -i log=10 /dev/sda11", expect pass, this option has been removed
> > since commit 2cf637c(mkfs: remove logarithm based CLI option).
> >
> > "fail -r size=65536,rtdev=$fsimg /dev/sda11" "fail -r rtdev=$fsimg /dev/sda11" works well if we disable
> > reflink, fail if we enable reflink. It fails because reflink was not supported in realtime devices
> > since commit bfa66ec.
> >
> > I change the expected result for compatibility with current xfsprogs and add rtdev test with reflink .
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I noticed Darrick provided a Reviewed-by tag, but as Darrick also noted,
> it'd be good to know what do other xfs maintainers think about this
> test.
Hi Eryu

I have sent a v3 patch about your comment.
Besides, I also want to know what other xfs maintainers think about this case. keep it or update it?
Let's wait for a short time.

Thanks
Yang Xu

> > ---
> >   tests/xfs/191-input-validation | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> >   1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/xfs/191-input-validation b/tests/xfs/191-input-validation
> > index b6658015..9fe72051 100755
> > --- a/tests/xfs/191-input-validation
> > +++ b/tests/xfs/191-input-validation
> > @@ -112,10 +112,11 @@ do_mkfs_fail -b size=2b $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -b size=nfi $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -b size=4096nfi $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -n size=2s $SCRATCH_DEV
> > -do_mkfs_fail -n size=2b $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -n size=nfi $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -n size=4096nfi $SCRATCH_DEV
> >
> > +do_mkfs_pass -n size=2b $SCRATCH_DEV
> > +
> >   # bad label length
> >   do_mkfs_fail -L thisiswaytoolong $SCRATCH_DEV
> >
> > @@ -129,6 +130,8 @@ do_mkfs_pass -d agsize=32M $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -d agsize=1g $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -d agsize=$((32 * 1024 * 1024)) $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -b size=4096 -d agsize=8192b $SCRATCH_DEV
> > +do_mkfs_pass -d agsize=8192b $SCRATCH_DEV
> > +do_mkfs_pass -d agsize=65536s $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -d sectsize=512,agsize=65536s $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -s size=512 -d agsize=65536s $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -d noalign $SCRATCH_DEV
> > @@ -136,7 +139,10 @@ do_mkfs_pass -d sunit=0,swidth=0 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -d sunit=8,swidth=8 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -d sunit=8,swidth=64 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -d su=0,sw=0 $SCRATCH_DEV
> > +do_mkfs_pass -d su=0,sw=64 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -d su=4096,sw=1 $SCRATCH_DEV
> > +do_mkfs_pass -d su=4096s,sw=64 $SCRATCH_DEV
> > +do_mkfs_pass -d su=4096b,sw=64 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -d su=4k,sw=1 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -d su=4K,sw=8 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -b size=4096 -d su=1b,sw=8 $SCRATCH_DEV
> > @@ -147,8 +153,6 @@ do_mkfs_pass -s size=512 -d su=8s,sw=8 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d size=${fssize}b $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d size=${fssize}s $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d size=${fssize}yerk $SCRATCH_DEV
> > -do_mkfs_fail -d agsize=8192b $SCRATCH_DEV
> > -do_mkfs_fail -d agsize=65536s $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d agsize=32Mbsdfsdo $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d agsize=1GB $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d agcount=1k $SCRATCH_DEV
> > @@ -159,13 +163,10 @@ do_mkfs_fail -d sunit=64,swidth=0 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d sunit=64,swidth=64,noalign $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d sunit=64k,swidth=64 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d sunit=64,swidth=64m $SCRATCH_DEV
> > -do_mkfs_fail -d su=0,sw=64 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d su=4096,sw=0 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d su=4097,sw=1 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d su=4096,sw=64,noalign $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d su=4096,sw=64s $SCRATCH_DEV
> > -do_mkfs_fail -d su=4096s,sw=64 $SCRATCH_DEV
> > -do_mkfs_fail -d su=4096b,sw=64 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d su=4096garabge,sw=64 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d su=4096,sw=64,sunit=64,swidth=64 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -d sectsize=10,agsize=65536s $SCRATCH_DEV
> > @@ -206,6 +207,7 @@ do_mkfs_pass -l sunit=64 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -l sunit=64 -d sunit=8,swidth=8 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -l sunit=8 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -l su=$((4096*10)) $SCRATCH_DEV
> > +do_mkfs_pass -l su=10b $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -b size=4096 -l su=10b $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -l sectsize=512,su=$((4096*10)) $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -l internal $SCRATCH_DEV
> > @@ -228,7 +230,6 @@ do_mkfs_fail -l agnum=32 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -l sunit=0  $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -l sunit=63 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -l su=1 $SCRATCH_DEV
> > -do_mkfs_fail -l su=10b $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -l su=10s $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -l su=$((4096*10+1)) $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -l sectsize=10,agsize=65536s $SCRATCH_DEV
> > @@ -246,7 +247,6 @@ do_mkfs_fail -l version=0  $SCRATCH_DEV
> >
> >   # naming section, should pass
> >   do_mkfs_pass -n size=65536 $SCRATCH_DEV
> > -do_mkfs_pass -n log=15 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -n version=2 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -n version=ci $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_pass -n ftype=0 -m crc=0 $SCRATCH_DEV
> > @@ -257,6 +257,7 @@ do_mkfs_fail -n version=1 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -n version=cid $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -n ftype=4 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -n ftype=0 $SCRATCH_DEV
> > +do_mkfs_fail -n log=15 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >
> >   reset_fsimg
> >
> > @@ -273,14 +274,24 @@ do_mkfs_fail -m crc=0,finobt=1 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >   do_mkfs_fail -m crc=1 -n ftype=0 $SCRATCH_DEV
> >
> >
> > +# realtime section, results depend on reflink
> > +$MKFS_XFS_PROG -f -m reflink=0 $SCRATCH_DEV>/dev/null 2>&1
> _scratch_mkfs_xfs_supported -m reflink=0>/dev/null 2>&1
>
> This helper doesn't actually create new fs but tests the given param
> with a dry run.
>
> And I think we need _require_scratch_nocheck instead of
> _require_scratch, as we test mkfs function and do wipefs $SCRATCH_DEV
> before every test now.
>
> Thanks,
> Eryu