On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 12:31:30PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > 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. Thanks for doing this. I'm seeing some of the same failures you are, and will fix them up in the next patch bundle. --D _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
