On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 07:49:08AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > There's a simple test for that condition, as noted in my previous mail > as well in case you missed it. Again, that probably calls out that we > could be doing better unit testing of bulkstat in xfstests. At the very > least we probably need some bulkstat inode count validation against a > known data set. That's exactly what I've been running to find this latest problem. But a 500TB filesystem with 10 million inodes in it is a bit beyond xfstests. ANd that only showed up the problem in 4 AGs out of 500, so with smaller filesystems there's a good chance that this would have also been missed.... > xfsdump testing is obviously important, but if bulkstat > is broken then we clearly can't expect xfsdump to work (and debugging > the former via the latter appears to be quite painful). We have a bulkstat command in xfstests. And it can be used to comapre the output against a stat of the file. But it can't detect missing inodes and I don't think we can start at arbitrary inodes, either. So it needs work to be able to be used in unit tests. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
