On 4/1/16 2:28 AM, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 03:00:50PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: >> With GETNEXTQUOTA support, xfs_quota -c "report" now outputs more quota >> info than before, and this breaks xfs/133 xfs/134 and xfs/262, e.g. >> xfs/133 fails as >> >> Filesystem Blocks Quota Limit Warn/Time Mounted on >> SCRATCH_DEV 0 102400 204800 00 [--------] SCRATCH_MNT >> === report command output === >> +(null) 0 0 0 00 [--------] >> 123456-project 0 102400 204800 00 [--------] >> >> Fix it by limiting xfs_quota to report on specific project quota number >> using -L & -U option, so only the project quota being tested is >> reported. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> I'm not sure if kernel should be fixed, but limiting the quota report on >> project number being tested seems something worth doing to me anyway. It avoids >> breakage of future changes of quota report output. > > Hi, > > FYI: > About "+(null) 0 0 0 00 [--------]"problem, it has been talked in: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.fstests/1852/focus=1968 > > I think: > 1) If we consider that this's a bug, the original test cases can > be the reproducer of this bug, so we shouldn't change the cases. > > 2) If we think print "(null) 0 0 0 00 [--------]" is right(or not > wrong), then this patch is good. yes, I'm sorry I didn't take care of this sooner. I don't think there's value in printing the "(null)" line; I think maybe my suggestion from that old thread might be best: > We could explicitly look up id 0 and not show it if it's not in the > projects file. Or now that I think about it - projid 0 is the default project quota, right? Assuming that's correct, perhaps we should conditionally print the line, changing "(null)" to "default", printing it only if a default quota is set (i.e. not all zeros). -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
