Hi Darrick, On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 06:46:02PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Hi all, > > This is the sixth revision of a patchset that adds to xfstests > support for testing reverse-mappings of physical blocks to file and > metadata (rmap); support for testing multiple file logical blocks to > the same physical block (reflink); and implements the beginnings of > online metadata scrubbing. > > The first eight patches are in Eryu Guan's pull request on 2016-06-15. > Those patches haven't changed, but they're not yet in the upstream > repo. > > If you're going to start using this mess, you probably ought to just > pull from my github trees for kernel[1], xfsprogs[2], and xfstests[3]. > There are also updates for xfs-docs[4]. The kernel patches should > apply to dchinner's for-next; xfsprogs patches to for-next; and > xfstest to master. The kernel git tree already has for-next included. > > The patches have been xfstested with x64, i386, and armv7l--arm64, > ppc64, and ppc64le no longer boot in qemu. All three architectures > pass all 'clone' group tests except xfs/128 (which is the swapext > test), and AFAICT don't cause any new failures for the 'auto' group. > > This is an extraordinary way to eat your data. Enjoy! > Comments and questions are, as always, welcome. I tested your xfstests patches with your kernel(HEAD f0b34b6 xfs: add btree scrub tracepoints) and xfsprogs(HEAD 34bd754 xfs_scrub: create online filesystem scrub program), with x86_64 host & 4k block size XFS. A './check -g auto' run looked fine overall. Besides the comments I replied to some patches, other common minor issues are: - space indention in _cleanup not tab - bare 'umount $SCRATCH_MNT' not _scratch_unmount - whitespace issues in _test|scratch_inject_error (I can fix all these minor issues at commit time, if you don't have other major updates to these patches). And the review of changes to xfs/122 needs help from other XFS developers :) (09/20 and 10/20) And besides the first 8 patches, 15/20 has been in upstream as well. Thanks, Eryu P.S. The failed tests I saw when testing with reflink-enabled kernel & xfsprogs: Failures: generic/054 generic/055 generic/108 generic/204 generic/356 generic/357 xfs/004 xfs/096 xfs/122 xfs/293 generic/108 generic/204 and xfs/004 are new failures compared to stock kernel and xfsprogs (kernel 4.7-rc5, xfsprogs 4.7-rc1). Just FYI. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
