On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 05:10:43PM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> Test the setting of the XFS BMBT fields. Runs through the valid
> bit values for each field. Also test the value past the last legal
> value.
>
> Additionally, ensures setting a core entry (core.gen is used) is
> still correct. Test that the hex (#HH) input on a BMBT field and a
> core entry are also correct.
A couple of comments below.
...
> +seq=`basename $0`
> +seqres=$RESULT_DIR/$seq
> +echo "QA output created by $seq"
> +
> +here=`pwd`
> +tmp=/tmp/$$
> +status=1 # failure is the default!
> +trap "_cleanup; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15
> +
> +_cleanup()
> +{
> + cd /
> + rm -f $tmp.*
> +}
> +
> +_do_bit_test()
> +{
> + _field="$1"
> + _bits="$2"
The leading "_" is reserved for library functions and variables, not
local test variables.
> +
> + echo "testing ${_field} ${_bits} bits" | sed 's/u3/u/'
> + $XFS_DB_PROG -x -c "inode $FILE_INO" -c "write ${_field} 0" \
> + $SCRATCH_DEV | sed 's/u3/u/'
> + num=1
> + for n in `seq 0 1 ${_bits}`; do
> + $XFS_DB_PROG -x -c "inode $FILE_INO" \
> + -c "write ${_field} ${num}" \
> + $SCRATCH_DEV | sed 's/u3/u/'
On the third time, a local filter_xfs_db function is appropriate. ;)
....
> +_scratch_unmount
> +_scratch_mkfs >/dev/null 2>&1
> +_scratch_mount
> +
> +# create the test file
> +echo "test file" > $SCRATCH_MNT/testfile
> +
> +# find the inode for the test file
> +FILE_INO=`ls -i $SCRATCH_MNT |awk '{print $1}'`
$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile?
> +
> +_scratch_unmount
> +
> +# test bit length constants
> +BMBT_EXNTFLAG_BITLEN=1
> +BMBT_STARTOFF_BITLEN=54
> +BMBT_STARTBLOCK_BITLEN=52
> +BMBT_BLOCKCOUNT_BITLEN=21
> +
> +# Which version of the filesystem?
> +echo $XFS_MKFS_OPTIONS | grep "crc=1" > /dev/null
> +if [ $? == 1 ]; then
> + prefix="u"
> +else
> + prefix="u3"
> +fi
Urk. That's messy. And it points out that xfs/278 has this same
problem. There's no reason that we need to test CRC enabled
filesystems here, and testing XFS_MKFS_OPTIONS is not reliable,
either as it will break if we change mkfs default behaviour.
Perhaps we'd do best simply to change the xfs_db prefix here to be
consistent for both v4 and v5 filesystesms ("u")? i.e. do this
before we release 3.2.0 and we can just ignore the problem....
.....
> Index: b/tests/xfs/group
> ===================================================================
> --- a/tests/xfs/group
> +++ b/tests/xfs/group
> @@ -186,3 +186,4 @@
> 304 auto quick quota
> 305 auto quota
> 306 auto stress log metadata repair
> +307 auto db
Definitely a quick test, too. ;)
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
