On 10/8/13 2:27 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 09:21:13AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote: >> On 10/07/2013 07:57 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> On 10/7/13 7:53 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>>> Two tests, please. move all the common parts into common/dump, and >>>> write them as two separate tests. That way we can easily track what >>>> test is failing just by looking at what harness test is failing... >>> >>> I'm not quite convinced that it's 2 separate tests, TBH. >>> >>> It's the same root cause; I guess there is a slightly different >>> outcome because if you hit the same root cause enough times, >>> you'll segfault. >> >> >> Multiple DMF offline files are successfully restored but the attrs >> are lost. I wanted to show/test that case. >> >> I agree with Eric that it is the same root cause but because can >> occur with successful dumps and does not segfault, Thats why the 2 >> tests. > > Ok, the problem might be triggering the same root cause, but in the > case of unit tests that is usually irrelevant. That is each individual test > should be independently tracked by the test harness regardless of > the bug it triggers. > > And reading on #xfs, the problem isn't clearly understood yet as > both you and Eric are not sure exactly why there are differences in > behaviour between different tests yet. e.g: > > [09/10/13 02:13] <rjohnston1> Ahh OK but my DMF test case had several wholly-sparse (offline files) and the dump succeeded. > [09/10/13 02:18] <sandeen> tbh there is one thing I'm not clear on here, why a 1t sparse file behaves differently from a 1k sparse file > [09/10/13 02:18] <sandeen> that seems . . wrong > [09/10/13 02:19] <sandeen> but I guess it must just key on i_size, not blocks > [09/10/13 02:19] <sandeen> so anyway, maybe your dmf testcase had smaller file sizes? > [09/10/13 02:19] <sandeen> sorry, I have to run & get missed homework to my kid @ school, bbiab. Grr. > [09/10/13 02:20] <rjohnston1> NP, yes they were smaller. > [09/10/13 02:22] <rjohnston1> 100 10MB files no segfault, just trashed attrs. But that's a testcase not yet written. ;) I do understand why there is a difference between Rich's 1-file test and the 4-file test. If you'd like to review the patch that fixes the root cause it might be more cleaer. Between the 1 file & 4 files, the difference is that if we hit the root bug enough times, it will fill the partial-completion array, run out of slots, and return an error. That error isn't handled and we get a segfault; I guess that's enough of a separate bug to warrant 2 tests. One to be sure we handle the sparse files, and a second to test the error handling from this function if we hit the first bug enough times & return an error. I _don't_ know how Rich/SGI managed to hit it with only 10MB files - I'm not clear on when xfsdump splits across streams. Since that's Rich's bug I'll let him work that out. ;) -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
