On Tue 27-07-10 10:15:38, Jan Kara wrote: > On Mon 26-07-10 16:46:17, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > On 06/15/2010 04:55 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Wed 09-06-10 12:49:49, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > >> Jan Kara wrote: > > >>> Run fsx (and also several fsx threads in parallel) and verify that > > >>> quota accounting is correct after they finish. > > >> > > >> Jan, I'm having trouble with this one on XFS for some reason, with our > > >> RHEL6 kernel and quota-3.17... > > > OK, attached is an improvement to the XFSQA tests after which all quota > > > tests pass for XFS just fine. > > > The second patch is just minor general improvement of _require_scratch > > > macro. > > > Could they be added to XFSQA repository? Thanks. > > > > Jan, I've got some ext4 failures reported on these, although I can't hit > > them, so not quite sure what's going on. > > > > In 231: > > > > +< fsgqa -- 760 0 0 3 0 0 > > +--- > > +> fsgqa -- 764 0 0 3 0 0 > > +14c14 > > +< fsgqa -- 760 0 0 3 0 0 > > +--- > > +> fsgqa -- 764 0 0 3 0 0 > > > > after the quotacheck & repquota we have 4 more blocks. Maybe this > > is due to my accounting of metadata blocks at write time, and not > > before ... would it be reasonable to put a sync call as the first > > line of check_usage() ? > Just last week a change went into xfstests which introduces a generic > quota checking function and uses sync before getting quota usage. I think > xfstests passed for me with ext4 after this change but I've now restarted > the tests to recheck it. For me all the quota tests pass just fine with ext4 and the latest xfstests... So does the latest version work also for you? Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
