[PATCH 0/3] xfstest random fixes

[PATCH 0/3] xfstest random fixes

[Anju T Sudhakar]

Below are some of xfstest fixes with 4k blocksize(ppc64) and xfs
filesystem.

Anju T Sudhakar (3):
  xfs/504: Add scratch_mount before checking for xfs_scrub unicode
    support.
  xfs/514: Check xfsprogs version for verifying the xfs_db commands
  xfs/515: Check xfsprogs version for testing xfs_quota commands

 tests/xfs/504 |  3 +++
 tests/xfs/514 | 12 +++++++++++-
 tests/xfs/515 | 15 +++++++++++++--
 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH 1/3] xfs/504: Add scratch_mount before checking for xfs_scrub unicode support.

[Anju T Sudhakar]

We may not detect the error `Inappropriate ioctl for device`, while running
`$XFS_IO_PROG -c "scrub probe" "$mountpoint"`, if scratch device is not
mounted before invoking _check_xfs_scrub_does_unicode(). So do
_scratch_mount before checking for xfs_scrub support.

Signed-off-by: Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 tests/xfs/504 | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tests/xfs/504 b/tests/xfs/504
index 40318314..291ee4e4 100755
--- a/tests/xfs/504
+++ b/tests/xfs/504
@@ -21,8 +21,11 @@ _require_xfs_io_command 'label'
 
 echo "Silence is golden."
 
+_scratch_mkfs > /dev/null
+_scratch_mount
 want_scrub=
 _check_xfs_scrub_does_unicode "$SCRATCH_MNT" "$SCRATCH_DEV" && want_scrub=yes
+_scratch_unmount
 
 filter_scrub() {
 	grep 'Unicode' | sed -e 's/^.*Duplicate/Duplicate/g'
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs/504: Add scratch_mount before checking for xfs_scrub unicode support.

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 02:22:57PM +0530, Anju T Sudhakar wrote:
> We may not detect the error `Inappropriate ioctl for device`, while running
> `$XFS_IO_PROG -c "scrub probe" "$mountpoint"`, if scratch device is not
> mounted before invoking _check_xfs_scrub_does_unicode(). So do
> _scratch_mount before checking for xfs_scrub support.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Oops, heh, good catch!

Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>

--D

> ---
>  tests/xfs/504 | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/504 b/tests/xfs/504
> index 40318314..291ee4e4 100755
> --- a/tests/xfs/504
> +++ b/tests/xfs/504
> @@ -21,8 +21,11 @@ _require_xfs_io_command 'label'
>  
>  echo "Silence is golden."
>  
> +_scratch_mkfs > /dev/null
> +_scratch_mount
>  want_scrub=
>  _check_xfs_scrub_does_unicode "$SCRATCH_MNT" "$SCRATCH_DEV" && want_scrub=yes
> +_scratch_unmount
>  
>  filter_scrub() {
>  	grep 'Unicode' | sed -e 's/^.*Duplicate/Duplicate/g'
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 

[PATCH 2/3] xfs/514: Check xfsprogs version for verifying the xfs_db commands

[Anju T Sudhakar]

xfs_db commands like `attr_remove, attr_set, btheight, and logformat`,
are documented only in xfsprogs version v5.5 and later. So skip checking
for these commands in xfs_db manpage,if the test is running with
xfsprogs version less than v5.5.

Signed-off-by: Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
Query: The reason to add this check is, while running xfstest with an         
older version of xfsprogs, this test case flags as failure, though         
xfs_db is not expected to have those commands. Otherwise upon failure we   
should ask the user to use the latest version of xfsprogs.                 
OR is there any better solution for this?     

 tests/xfs/514 | 12 +++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tests/xfs/514 b/tests/xfs/514
index a9c67645..8da66f41 100755
--- a/tests/xfs/514
+++ b/tests/xfs/514
@@ -27,6 +27,11 @@ _require_test
 echo "Silence is golden"
 
 MANPAGE=$($MAN_PROG --path xfs_db)
+# xfs_db commands - attr_remove, attr_set, btheight, and logformat
+# are documented in 5.5.0 and later versions only. So skip checking for
+# those commands if the version is less than 5.5.0.
+command_list="attr_set attr_remove btheight logformat"
+req_version=$($XFS_DB_PROG -V | cut -d" " -f3)
 
 case "$MANPAGE" in
 *.gz|*.z\|*.Z)	CAT=zcat;;
@@ -41,7 +46,12 @@ truncate -s 128m $file
 $MKFS_XFS_PROG $file >> /dev/null
 
 for COMMAND in `$XFS_DB_PROG -x -c help $file | awk '{print $1}' | grep -v "^Use"`; do
-  $CAT "$MANPAGE" | egrep -q "^\.B.*$COMMAND" || \
+	if [ "$req_version" \< "5.5.0" ]; then
+		if (echo $command_list | tr ' ' '\n' | grep -F -x -q "$COMMAND");then
+			continue
+		fi
+	fi
+	$CAT "$MANPAGE" | egrep -q "^\.B.*$COMMAND" || \
 	echo "$COMMAND not documented in the xfs_db manpage"
 done
 
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH 2/3] xfs/514: Check xfsprogs version for verifying the xfs_db commands

[Zorro Lang]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 02:22:58PM +0530, Anju T Sudhakar wrote:
> xfs_db commands like `attr_remove, attr_set, btheight, and logformat`,
> are documented only in xfsprogs version v5.5 and later. So skip checking
> for these commands in xfs_db manpage,if the test is running with
> xfsprogs version less than v5.5.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> Query: The reason to add this check is, while running xfstest with an         
> older version of xfsprogs, this test case flags as failure, though         
> xfs_db is not expected to have those commands. Otherwise upon failure we   
> should ask the user to use the latest version of xfsprogs.                 
> OR is there any better solution for this?     
> 
>  tests/xfs/514 | 12 +++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/514 b/tests/xfs/514
> index a9c67645..8da66f41 100755
> --- a/tests/xfs/514
> +++ b/tests/xfs/514
> @@ -27,6 +27,11 @@ _require_test
>  echo "Silence is golden"
>  
>  MANPAGE=$($MAN_PROG --path xfs_db)
> +# xfs_db commands - attr_remove, attr_set, btheight, and logformat
> +# are documented in 5.5.0 and later versions only. So skip checking for
> +# those commands if the version is less than 5.5.0.
> +command_list="attr_set attr_remove btheight logformat"
> +req_version=$($XFS_DB_PROG -V | cut -d" " -f3)

Generally I think it's a known "bug"(doc missing), and this case hit this bug
in old xfsprogs, that's as expected.

Thanks,
Zorro

>  
>  case "$MANPAGE" in
>  *.gz|*.z\|*.Z)	CAT=zcat;;
> @@ -41,7 +46,12 @@ truncate -s 128m $file
>  $MKFS_XFS_PROG $file >> /dev/null
>  
>  for COMMAND in `$XFS_DB_PROG -x -c help $file | awk '{print $1}' | grep -v "^Use"`; do
> -  $CAT "$MANPAGE" | egrep -q "^\.B.*$COMMAND" || \
> +	if [ "$req_version" \< "5.5.0" ]; then
> +		if (echo $command_list | tr ' ' '\n' | grep -F -x -q "$COMMAND");then
> +			continue
> +		fi
> +	fi
> +	$CAT "$MANPAGE" | egrep -q "^\.B.*$COMMAND" || \
>  	echo "$COMMAND not documented in the xfs_db manpage"
>  done
>  
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 

Re: [PATCH 2/3] xfs/514: Check xfsprogs version for verifying the xfs_db commands

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 02:22:58PM +0530, Anju T Sudhakar wrote:
> xfs_db commands like `attr_remove, attr_set, btheight, and logformat`,
> are documented only in xfsprogs version v5.5 and later. So skip checking
> for these commands in xfs_db manpage,if the test is running with
> xfsprogs version less than v5.5.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> Query: The reason to add this check is, while running xfstest with an         
> older version of xfsprogs, this test case flags as failure, though         
> xfs_db is not expected to have those commands. Otherwise upon failure we   
> should ask the user to use the latest version of xfsprogs.                 
> OR is there any better solution for this?     

If you're shipping xfsprogs 5.5 in a product, why not update the manpage
to document the functionality that's in your product?  If you aren't
shipping 5.5, then why run such an old version?

--D

> 
>  tests/xfs/514 | 12 +++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/514 b/tests/xfs/514
> index a9c67645..8da66f41 100755
> --- a/tests/xfs/514
> +++ b/tests/xfs/514
> @@ -27,6 +27,11 @@ _require_test
>  echo "Silence is golden"
>  
>  MANPAGE=$($MAN_PROG --path xfs_db)
> +# xfs_db commands - attr_remove, attr_set, btheight, and logformat
> +# are documented in 5.5.0 and later versions only. So skip checking for
> +# those commands if the version is less than 5.5.0.
> +command_list="attr_set attr_remove btheight logformat"
> +req_version=$($XFS_DB_PROG -V | cut -d" " -f3)
>  
>  case "$MANPAGE" in
>  *.gz|*.z\|*.Z)	CAT=zcat;;
> @@ -41,7 +46,12 @@ truncate -s 128m $file
>  $MKFS_XFS_PROG $file >> /dev/null
>  
>  for COMMAND in `$XFS_DB_PROG -x -c help $file | awk '{print $1}' | grep -v "^Use"`; do
> -  $CAT "$MANPAGE" | egrep -q "^\.B.*$COMMAND" || \
> +	if [ "$req_version" \< "5.5.0" ]; then
> +		if (echo $command_list | tr ' ' '\n' | grep -F -x -q "$COMMAND");then
> +			continue
> +		fi
> +	fi
> +	$CAT "$MANPAGE" | egrep -q "^\.B.*$COMMAND" || \
>  	echo "$COMMAND not documented in the xfs_db manpage"
>  done
>  
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 

Re: [PATCH 2/3] xfs/514: Check xfsprogs version for verifying the xfs_db commands

[Anju T Sudhakar]

Hi,

On 6/28/21 9:05 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 02:22:58PM +0530, Anju T Sudhakar wrote:
>> xfs_db commands like `attr_remove, attr_set, btheight, and logformat`,
>> are documented only in xfsprogs version v5.5 and later. So skip checking
>> for these commands in xfs_db manpage,if the test is running with
>> xfsprogs version less than v5.5.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> Query: The reason to add this check is, while running xfstest with an
>> older version of xfsprogs, this test case flags as failure, though
>> xfs_db is not expected to have those commands. Otherwise upon failure we
>> should ask the user to use the latest version of xfsprogs.
>> OR is there any better solution for this?
> If you're shipping xfsprogs 5.5 in a product, why not update the manpage
> to document the functionality that's in your product?  If you aren't
> shipping 5.5, then why run such an old version?
>
> --D


OK. Then I think we can drop patch 2/3 and 3/3 in this series, as both 
checks for the

xfsprogs version to run the test.



Thanks,

Anju

[PATCH 3/3] xfs/515: Check xfsprogs version for testing xfs_quota commands

[Anju T Sudhakar]

xfs_quota command 'limit' is reformated in xfsprogs version v5.5.0, to
make it suitable for this(xfs/515) test case. So the test case will
flag failure while running with xfsprogs version less than v5.5, even
though `limit` is documented in xfs_quota manpage. So skip this test for
xfsprogs versions less than v5.5.

Signed-off-by: Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 tests/xfs/515 | 15 +++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tests/xfs/515 b/tests/xfs/515
index 32216fe6..5eb97aff 100755
--- a/tests/xfs/515
+++ b/tests/xfs/515
@@ -27,6 +27,11 @@ _require_test
 echo "Silence is golden"
 
 MANPAGE=$($MAN_PROG --path xfs_quota)
+# xfs_quota command 'limit' is reformated in xfsprogs version v5.5.0,
+# to make it suitable for this test case. For xfprogs versions less than
+# v5.5.0, this test case can not detect the command 'limit'.
+req_version=$($XFS_DB_PROG -V | cut -d" " -f3)
+req_command="limit"
 
 case "$MANPAGE" in
 *.gz|*.z\|*.Z)	CAT=zcat;;
@@ -36,8 +41,14 @@ case "$MANPAGE" in
 esac
 _require_command `which $CAT` $CAT
 
-for COMMAND in `$XFS_QUOTA_PROG -x -c help $file | awk '{print $1}' | grep -v "^Use"`; do
-  $CAT "$MANPAGE" | egrep -q "^\.B.*$COMMAND" || \
+for COMMAND in `$XFS_QUOTA_PROG -x -c help $file | awk '{print $1}' | grep -v "^Use"`;
+do
+	if [ "$req_version" \< "5.5.0" ]; then
+		if [ "$COMMAND" == "$req_command" ];then
+			continue
+		fi
+	fi
+	$CAT "$MANPAGE" | egrep -q "^\.B.*$COMMAND" || \
 	echo "$COMMAND not documented in the xfs_quota manpage"
 done
 
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH 3/3] xfs/515: Check xfsprogs version for testing xfs_quota commands

[Zorro Lang]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 02:22:59PM +0530, Anju T Sudhakar wrote:
> xfs_quota command 'limit' is reformated in xfsprogs version v5.5.0, to
> make it suitable for this(xfs/515) test case. So the test case will
> flag failure while running with xfsprogs version less than v5.5, even
> though `limit` is documented in xfs_quota manpage. So skip this test for
> xfsprogs versions less than v5.5.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  tests/xfs/515 | 15 +++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/515 b/tests/xfs/515
> index 32216fe6..5eb97aff 100755
> --- a/tests/xfs/515
> +++ b/tests/xfs/515
> @@ -27,6 +27,11 @@ _require_test
>  echo "Silence is golden"
>  
>  MANPAGE=$($MAN_PROG --path xfs_quota)
> +# xfs_quota command 'limit' is reformated in xfsprogs version v5.5.0,
> +# to make it suitable for this test case. For xfprogs versions less than
> +# v5.5.0, this test case can not detect the command 'limit'.
> +req_version=$($XFS_DB_PROG -V | cut -d" " -f3)
> +req_command="limit"

It's similar as the patch of [2/3], and I have similar review points. And
checking program version isn't a good way to judge the expect behavior of
a program, especially downstream always backport patches of upstream.

Thanks,
Zorro

>  
>  case "$MANPAGE" in
>  *.gz|*.z\|*.Z)	CAT=zcat;;
> @@ -36,8 +41,14 @@ case "$MANPAGE" in
>  esac
>  _require_command `which $CAT` $CAT
>  
> -for COMMAND in `$XFS_QUOTA_PROG -x -c help $file | awk '{print $1}' | grep -v "^Use"`; do
> -  $CAT "$MANPAGE" | egrep -q "^\.B.*$COMMAND" || \
> +for COMMAND in `$XFS_QUOTA_PROG -x -c help $file | awk '{print $1}' | grep -v "^Use"`;
> +do
> +	if [ "$req_version" \< "5.5.0" ]; then
> +		if [ "$COMMAND" == "$req_command" ];then
> +			continue
> +		fi
> +	fi
> +	$CAT "$MANPAGE" | egrep -q "^\.B.*$COMMAND" || \
>  	echo "$COMMAND not documented in the xfs_quota manpage"
>  done
>  
> -- 
> 2.31.1
>