* [PATCH] xfstests: make 275 xfs specific. @ 2012-05-05 15:07 Tao Ma 2012-05-05 23:37 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Tao Ma @ 2012-05-05 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xfs From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com> In my test with ext4, 275 can't pass because ext4 can create a 8k file in the end not like what xfs does. So make this test case xfs only for now. Signed-off-by: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com> --- 275 | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/275 b/275 index 214262e..3386a59 100755 --- a/275 +++ b/275 @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ _cleanup() . ./common.filter # real QA test starts here -_supported_fs generic +_supported_fs xfs _supported_os IRIX Linux _require_scratch -- 1.7.1 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: make 275 xfs specific. 2012-05-05 15:07 [PATCH] xfstests: make 275 xfs specific Tao Ma @ 2012-05-05 23:37 ` Dave Chinner 2012-05-06 15:03 ` Tao Ma 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2012-05-05 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tao Ma; +Cc: xfs On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:07:09PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote: > From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com> > > In my test with ext4, 275 can't pass because ext4 > can create a 8k file in the end not like what xfs > does. So make this test case xfs only for now. It's not an XFS specific test - it's a test that is supposed to test POSIX write behaviour. i.e. if the filesystem is full, and then you free 4k of space, then an 8k write should only be able to write 4k, yes? So doesn't a failure on ext4 indicate that there's something wrong with ext4 (either it's ENOSPC detection or the short write handling), not the test? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: make 275 xfs specific. 2012-05-05 23:37 ` Dave Chinner @ 2012-05-06 15:03 ` Tao Ma 2012-05-07 1:23 ` Dave Chinner 2012-09-07 19:55 ` Eric Sandeen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Tao Ma @ 2012-05-06 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: xfs On 05/06/2012 07:37 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:07:09PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote: >> From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com> >> >> In my test with ext4, 275 can't pass because ext4 >> can create a 8k file in the end not like what xfs >> does. So make this test case xfs only for now. > > It's not an XFS specific test - it's a test that is supposed to test > POSIX write behaviour. i.e. if the filesystem is full, and then you > free 4k of space, then an 8k write should only be able to write 4k, > yes? Yes, but it doesn't work as expected for ext4. > > So doesn't a failure on ext4 indicate that there's something wrong > with ext4 (either it's ENOSPC detection or the short write > handling), not the test? Actually in my test, ext4 can create the file with 8K file size, not a short write. I haven't looked into it yet. But AFAICS, if we have an ext4 volume with 8k cluster size, a 4k file can occupy a 8k cluster and the final write of 8k will succeed instead of the short write. Thanks Tao _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: make 275 xfs specific. 2012-05-06 15:03 ` Tao Ma @ 2012-05-07 1:23 ` Dave Chinner 2012-09-07 19:55 ` Eric Sandeen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2012-05-07 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tao Ma; +Cc: xfs On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 11:03:19PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote: > On 05/06/2012 07:37 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:07:09PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote: > >> From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com> > >> > >> In my test with ext4, 275 can't pass because ext4 > >> can create a 8k file in the end not like what xfs > >> does. So make this test case xfs only for now. > > > > It's not an XFS specific test - it's a test that is supposed to test > > POSIX write behaviour. i.e. if the filesystem is full, and then you > > free 4k of space, then an 8k write should only be able to write 4k, > > yes? > Yes, but it doesn't work as expected for ext4. It won't work as expected for many XFS configurations, too. e.g. filesystem block size > 4k on 16/64k page machines, or if the filesystem is configured with an inheritable extent size hint on the root directory (XFS has been able to do per-file "bigalloc" for years ;) > > So doesn't a failure on ext4 indicate that there's something wrong > > with ext4 (either it's ENOSPC detection or the short write > > handling), not the test? > Actually in my test, ext4 can create the file with 8K file size, not a > short write. I haven't looked into it yet. But AFAICS, if we have an > ext4 volume with 8k cluster size, a 4k file can occupy a 8k cluster and > the final write of 8k will succeed instead of the short write. IOws, you are testing with bigalloc? Many tests make the assumption that allocation/extent size is the same as the filesystem block size, and many more make the assumption that the filesystem block size is always 4k. These tests generally fail on differently configured filesystems, and so need massaging to make work on these sorts of configs. In this case, just make the write larger than the largest possible allocation size (say 2MB), and fail the test if the write is complete rather than short... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: make 275 xfs specific. 2012-05-06 15:03 ` Tao Ma 2012-05-07 1:23 ` Dave Chinner @ 2012-09-07 19:55 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-09-11 2:24 ` Eric Sandeen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2012-09-07 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tao Ma; +Cc: xfs On 5/6/12 10:03 AM, Tao Ma wrote: > On 05/06/2012 07:37 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:07:09PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote: >>> From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com> >>> >>> In my test with ext4, 275 can't pass because ext4 >>> can create a 8k file in the end not like what xfs >>> does. So make this test case xfs only for now. >> >> It's not an XFS specific test - it's a test that is supposed to test >> POSIX write behaviour. i.e. if the filesystem is full, and then you >> free 4k of space, then an 8k write should only be able to write 4k, >> yes? > Yes, but it doesn't work as expected for ext4. Came across this thread again. I had patches on the list a while ago to fix it up. [PATCH V2] xfstests: make 275 pass But it never got fully reviewed or merged. :( -Eric >> So doesn't a failure on ext4 indicate that there's something wrong >> with ext4 (either it's ENOSPC detection or the short write >> handling), not the test? > Actually in my test, ext4 can create the file with 8K file size, not a > short write. I haven't looked into it yet. But AFAICS, if we have an > ext4 volume with 8k cluster size, a 4k file can occupy a 8k cluster and > the final write of 8k will succeed instead of the short write. > > Thanks > Tao > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: make 275 xfs specific. 2012-09-07 19:55 ` Eric Sandeen @ 2012-09-11 2:24 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-09-14 11:05 ` Tao Ma 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2012-09-11 2:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tao Ma; +Cc: xfs On 9/7/12 2:55 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 5/6/12 10:03 AM, Tao Ma wrote: >> On 05/06/2012 07:37 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:07:09PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote: >>>> From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com> >>>> >>>> In my test with ext4, 275 can't pass because ext4 >>>> can create a 8k file in the end not like what xfs >>>> does. So make this test case xfs only for now. >>> >>> It's not an XFS specific test - it's a test that is supposed to test >>> POSIX write behaviour. i.e. if the filesystem is full, and then you >>> free 4k of space, then an 8k write should only be able to write 4k, >>> yes? >> Yes, but it doesn't work as expected for ext4. > > Came across this thread again. I had patches on the list a while ago > to fix it up. > > [PATCH V2] xfstests: make 275 pass > > But it never got fully reviewed or merged. :( It's reviewed & merged now. Does it fix things for you? (I hope?) -Eric > -Eric > >>> So doesn't a failure on ext4 indicate that there's something wrong >>> with ext4 (either it's ENOSPC detection or the short write >>> handling), not the test? >> Actually in my test, ext4 can create the file with 8K file size, not a >> short write. I haven't looked into it yet. But AFAICS, if we have an >> ext4 volume with 8k cluster size, a 4k file can occupy a 8k cluster and >> the final write of 8k will succeed instead of the short write. >> >> Thanks >> Tao >> >> _______________________________________________ >> xfs mailing list >> xfs@oss.sgi.com >> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs >> > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfstests: make 275 xfs specific. 2012-09-11 2:24 ` Eric Sandeen @ 2012-09-14 11:05 ` Tao Ma 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Tao Ma @ 2012-09-14 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: xfs On 09/11/2012 10:24 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 9/7/12 2:55 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 5/6/12 10:03 AM, Tao Ma wrote: >>> On 05/06/2012 07:37 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>>> On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:07:09PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote: >>>>> From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com> >>>>> >>>>> In my test with ext4, 275 can't pass because ext4 >>>>> can create a 8k file in the end not like what xfs >>>>> does. So make this test case xfs only for now. >>>> >>>> It's not an XFS specific test - it's a test that is supposed to test >>>> POSIX write behaviour. i.e. if the filesystem is full, and then you >>>> free 4k of space, then an 8k write should only be able to write 4k, >>>> yes? >>> Yes, but it doesn't work as expected for ext4. >> >> Came across this thread again. I had patches on the list a while ago >> to fix it up. >> >> [PATCH V2] xfstests: make 275 pass >> >> But it never got fully reviewed or merged. :( > > It's reviewed & merged now. Does it fix things for you? (I hope?) No, but much better. It removes "lost+found" after mkfs, so the fsck will complain about it. So I have created the corresponding patch for it, and now the test case pass. Please see my patch "xfstests: 275, Don't remove all the files in SCRATCH_MNT". Thanks Tao _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-09-14 11:04 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-05-05 15:07 [PATCH] xfstests: make 275 xfs specific Tao Ma 2012-05-05 23:37 ` Dave Chinner 2012-05-06 15:03 ` Tao Ma 2012-05-07 1:23 ` Dave Chinner 2012-09-07 19:55 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-09-11 2:24 ` Eric Sandeen 2012-09-14 11:05 ` Tao Ma
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.