On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 07:57:18AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote: > Thanks for the comments. > > On 09/05/2012 05:26 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > >On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 02:43:27PM -0500, rjohnston@xxxxxxx wrote: > >>Patch "rework large filesystem testing" introduces a new option --large-fs > >>which creates a new file $SCRATCH_MNT/.use_space. If this 10 part patchset is > >>applied, the following tests will fail: > >> 019 026 027 028 046 047 050 056 059 060 062 063 064 065 066 > > > >That's a lot more tests than I see failing. > > It is very repeatable for me. > > > > >>This patch accounts for the following new output when testing xfs filesystems with > >>the --large-fs option by creating new output file to compare against > >>($seq.largefs.out): > > > >Creating new output files is the absolute last resort. Indeed, what > >happens when you get different output for tests that already select > >an output file based on, say, platform or some other criteria? We > >get a combinatorial explosion of golden output files, and that is > >simply not manageable. > > > >The usual thing to do is update the necessary filters or change the > >way the tests run to avoid trivial output file differences e.g. use > >a subdir rather than SCRATCH_MNT directly. Or, for example the > >filters that munge different standard error messages from different > >platforms to be the same... > > > > OK good to know. > > >>1. The following four lines appear in test 019. > >> File: "./.use_space" > >> Size: 6312890368 Filetype: Regular File > >> Mode: (0600/-rw-------) Uid: (0) Gid: (0) > >> Device: <DEVICE> Inode: <INODE> Links: 1 > > > >This test doesn't really need to be run for large filesystems - > >running it on large filesystems doesn't improve the coverage of or > >our confidence in the code it is testing, so I'd just add a > >_require_no_large_scratch_dev to it. > > > > Works for me. > > >>2. When the nodump attribute is set, the xfsdump -e option will cause the > >> following additional lines to appear. > >> xfsdump: NOTE: pruned 1 files: skip attribute set > >> Only in SCRATCH_MNT: .use_space > >> SCRATCH_MNT/.use_space > > > >Ok, those are the errors I haven't seen - not sure why. I'll have to > >look into that. > > > >However, this is definitely a case of updating the dump output > >filter to remove these messages from the output stream. The > >alternative is to change the common dump code to use a subdirectory > >rather than the root directory so it doesn't see these files at all. > > > > Good suggestion > > >>3. Number of files off by one. > >> xfsrestore: # directories and (off by 1) entries processed > > > >That would be fixed by using a subdir for the dump tests. I don't > >recommend that the number should be filtered, as having dump report > >the correct number of files scanned is important. > > I agree. > > > > >> [ROOT] 0 0 0 00 [--------] (off by 1) 0 0 00 [--------] 0 0 0 00 [--------] > > > >Perhaps the usre/group of the use_space file needs to be changed so > >it doesn't impact on the test results. Alternatively, a filter could > >be written/modified to fix the number appropriately. > > Sounds reasonable. > > > > >>This patch also modifies check and common.quota to use the new output file > >>$seq.largefs.out when the --large-fs option is used (LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV = yes) > >>or $seq.out when the --large-fs option is NOT used (LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV != yes). > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx> > >> > >>--- > >> 019.largefs.out | 5 +++ > >> 026.largefs.out | 4 ++- > >> 027.largefs.out | 2 - > >> 028.largefs.out | 5 +++ > >> 046.largefs.out | 3 +- > >> 047.largefs.out | 5 +++ > >> 050.largefs.out | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- > >> 056.largefs.out | 3 +- > >> 059.largefs.out | 2 + > >> 060.largefs.out | 4 ++- > >> 062.largefs.out | 2 + > >> 063.largefs.out | 3 +- > >> 064.largefs.out | 41 ++++++++++++++++--------------- > >> 065.largefs.out | 29 +++++++++++----------- > >> 066.largefs.out | 3 +- > >> check | 12 +++++++-- > >> common.quota | 20 ++++++++++----- > >> 17 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-) > > > >FWIW, this patch is supposed to add these *.largefs.out files, right? The > >patch, however: > > > >>Index: b/019.largefs.out > >>=================================================================== > >>--- a/019.largefs.out > >>+++ b/019.largefs.out > >>@@ -9,6 +9,11 @@ Wrote 2048.00Kb (value 0x2c) > >> Mode: (0777/drwxrwxrwx) Uid: (3) Gid: (1) > >> Device: <DEVICE> Inode: <INODE> Links: 3 > >> > >>+ File: "./.use_space" > >>+ Size: 6312890368 Filetype: Regular File > >>+ Mode: (0600/-rw-------) Uid: (0) Gid: (0) > >>+Device: <DEVICE> Inode: <INODE> Links: 1 > >>+ > >> File: "./bigfile" > >> Size: 2097152 Filetype: Regular File > >> Mode: (0666/-rw-rw-rw-) Uid: (3) Gid: (0) > > > >... assumes they already exist... > > > > Yup my bad, I only posted the differences from the original *.out files. > > May I make the suggested changes, or as this is your patchset do you > want to make them? I've got a couple of other fixes to make to the series, so I'll work these in. Thanks for reporting them and prototyping fixes for them. :) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
