On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Alex Elder wrote: > On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 09:14 +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > This test suppose to validate that file systems are using the fitrim > > arguments right. It checks that the fstrim returns EINVAl in case that > > the start of the range is beyond the end of the file system, and also > > that the fstrim works without an error if the length of the range is > > bigger than the file system (it should be truncated to the file system > > length automatically within the fitrim implementation). > > > > This test should also catch common problem with overflow of start+len. > > Some file systems (ext4,xfs) had overflow problems in the past so there > > is a specific test for it (for ext4 and xfs) as well as generic test for > > other file systems, but it would be nice if other fs can add their > > specific checks if this problem does apply to them as well. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > OK, I know I suggested it, and I do like the result, but > there could be a problem with the use of things like > "2^32 - 1" being passed to the _math() function. > > The problem lies in the way _math() backs off to try > to use shell built-in arithmetic, which interprets the > '^' as a bitwise XOR operator. (Note, _math() was > defined in an earlier patch.) > > I think the use of "bc" to do certain math operations > has some value, and as such I think the right fix is > just to require "bc" in order for xfstests, or at least > for any that use the _math() function, and drop the > fall-back logic out of the definition of _math(). > > What do you think? Yes I had the same concern, but I guess I was just lazy to look at it :). So if we can require "bc" for xfstests we can simply remove the fallback. Also maybe adding helper _require_bc, or maybe even better adding helper _require <whatever> so we can check for <whatever> tool in any test. Thanks! -Lukas > > Assuming we resolve that, this test now looks fine to me. > > Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx> > > > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
