From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p8QDqd6X167380 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:52:39 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:52:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Lukas Czerner Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add test 257: Check proper FITRIM argument handling In-Reply-To: <1317041252.3030.24.camel@doink> Message-ID: References: <1316787311-23428-2-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <1317021244-7556-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <1317041252.3030.24.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Alex Elder Cc: Lukas Czerner , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Alex Elder wrote: > On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 09:14 +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > This test suppose to validate that file systems are using the fitrim > > arguments right. It checks that the fstrim returns EINVAl in case that > > the start of the range is beyond the end of the file system, and also > > that the fstrim works without an error if the length of the range is > > bigger than the file system (it should be truncated to the file system > > length automatically within the fitrim implementation). > > > > This test should also catch common problem with overflow of start+len. > > Some file systems (ext4,xfs) had overflow problems in the past so there > > is a specific test for it (for ext4 and xfs) as well as generic test for > > other file systems, but it would be nice if other fs can add their > > specific checks if this problem does apply to them as well. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner > > OK, I know I suggested it, and I do like the result, but > there could be a problem with the use of things like > "2^32 - 1" being passed to the _math() function. > > The problem lies in the way _math() backs off to try > to use shell built-in arithmetic, which interprets the > '^' as a bitwise XOR operator. (Note, _math() was > defined in an earlier patch.) > > I think the use of "bc" to do certain math operations > has some value, and as such I think the right fix is > just to require "bc" in order for xfstests, or at least > for any that use the _math() function, and drop the > fall-back logic out of the definition of _math(). > > What do you think? Yes I had the same concern, but I guess I was just lazy to look at it :). So if we can require "bc" for xfstests we can simply remove the fallback. Also maybe adding helper _require_bc, or maybe even better adding helper _require so we can check for tool in any test. Thanks! -Lukas > > Assuming we resolve that, this test now looks fine to me. > > Reviewed-by: Alex Elder > > > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs