On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:24:47AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
>
>
> on 2019/09/18 10:59, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > xfs/030 is weird, I've found it long time ago.
> >
> > If I do a 'whole disk mkfs' (_scratch_mkfs_xfs), before this sized mkfs:
> >
> > _scratch_mkfs_xfs $DSIZE >/dev/null 2>&1
> >
> > Everything looks clear, and test pass. I can't send a patch to do this,
> > because I don't know the reason.
> Yes. I also found running _scratch_mkfs_xfs in xfs/030 can slove this
> problem yesterday. Or, we can adjust _try_wipe_scratch_devs order in
> check(But I dont't have enough reason to explain why adjust it). as below:
(Yeah, I don't see any obvious reason why that would change outcomes...)
> --- a/check
> +++ b/check
> @@ -753,7 +753,6 @@ for section in $HOST_OPTIONS_SECTIONS; do
> # _check_dmesg depends on this log in dmesg
> touch ${RESULT_DIR}/check_dmesg
> fi
> - _try_wipe_scratch_devs > /dev/null 2>&1
> if [ "$DUMP_OUTPUT" = true ]; then
> _run_seq 2>&1 | tee $tmp.out
> # Because $? would get tee's return code
> @@ -799,7 +798,7 @@ for section in $HOST_OPTIONS_SECTIONS; do
> # Scan for memory leaks after every test so that associating
> # a leak to a particular test will be as accurate as
> possible.
> _check_kmemleak || err=true
> -
> + _try_wipe_scratch_devs > /dev/null 2>&1
> # test ends after all checks are done.
> $timestamp && _timestamp
> stop=`_wallclock`
>
> >
> > I'm not familiar with xfs_repair so much, so I don't know what happens
> > underlying. I suppose the the part after the $DSIZE affect the xfs_repair,
> > but I don't know why the wipefs can cause that, wipefs only erase 4 bytes
> > at the beginning.
> >
> I am finding the reasion. It seems wipefs wipes important information and
> $DSIZE option(using single agcount or dsize, it also fails ) can not format
> disk completely. If we use other options, it can pass.
How does mkfs fail, specifically?
Also, what's your storage configuration? And lsblk -D output?
--D
> > Darrick, do you know more about that?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zorro
> >
> > > > xfs/148 is a clone of test 030 using xfs_prepair64 instead of xfs_repair.
> > > > xfs/149 is a clone of test 031 using xfs_prepair instead of xfs_repair
> > I'm not worried about it too much, due to it always 'not run' and never
> > failsYes. But I perfer to remove them because IMO they are useless.
> >
>
> > xfs/148 [not run] parallel repair binary xfs_prepair64 is not installed
> > xfs/149 [not run] parallel repair binary xfs_prepair is not installed
> > Ran: xfs/148 xfs/149
> > Not run: xfs/148 xfs/149
> > Passed all 2 tests
> >
>
>
