xfs/191 failures?

xfs/191 failures?

[Christoph Hellwig]

Hi Jan and Baihua,

the xfs/191 test case has been failing for me basically since it
was added.  Does it succeed for anyone with an upstream kernel
and xfsprogs?  Here is my diff between the golden and the actual
output:

--- /root/xfstests/tests/xfs/191-input-validation.out	2016-09-21 20:34:14.961574921 +0000
+++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs/191-input-validation.out.bad	2020-01-15 15:05:25.580935340 +0000
@@ -1,2 +1,13 @@
 QA output created by 191-input-validation
 silence is golden
+pass -n size=2b /dev/vdc
+pass -d agsize=8192b /dev/vdc
+pass -d agsize=65536s /dev/vdc
+pass -d su=0,sw=64 /dev/vdc
+pass -d su=4096s,sw=64 /dev/vdc
+pass -d su=4096b,sw=64 /dev/vdc
+pass -l su=10b /dev/vdc
+fail -n log=15 /dev/vdc
+fail -r rtdev=/mnt/test/191-input-validation.img /dev/vdc
+fail -r size=65536,rtdev=/mnt/test/191-input-validation.img /dev/vdc
+fail -i log=10 /dev/vdc

Re: xfs/191 failures?

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 07:08:02AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Jan and Baihua,
> 
> the xfs/191 test case has been failing for me basically since it
> was added.  Does it succeed for anyone with an upstream kernel
> and xfsprogs?

It never succeeds here.

--D

> Here is my diff between the golden and the actual
> output:

> --- /root/xfstests/tests/xfs/191-input-validation.out	2016-09-21 20:34:14.961574921 +0000
> +++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs/191-input-validation.out.bad	2020-01-15 15:05:25.580935340 +0000
> @@ -1,2 +1,13 @@
>  QA output created by 191-input-validation
>  silence is golden
> +pass -n size=2b /dev/vdc
> +pass -d agsize=8192b /dev/vdc
> +pass -d agsize=65536s /dev/vdc
> +pass -d su=0,sw=64 /dev/vdc
> +pass -d su=4096s,sw=64 /dev/vdc
> +pass -d su=4096b,sw=64 /dev/vdc
> +pass -l su=10b /dev/vdc
> +fail -n log=15 /dev/vdc
> +fail -r rtdev=/mnt/test/191-input-validation.img /dev/vdc
> +fail -r size=65536,rtdev=/mnt/test/191-input-validation.img /dev/vdc
> +fail -i log=10 /dev/vdc

Re: xfs/191 failures?

[Eric Sandeen]

On 1/15/20 10:21 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 07:08:02AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Hi Jan and Baihua,
>>
>> the xfs/191 test case has been failing for me basically since it
>> was added.  Does it succeed for anyone with an upstream kernel
>> and xfsprogs?
> 
> It never succeeds here.

<Jan has left Red Hat>

yeah I think this has always been a mess, not sure why it took so long to
highlight it.  Seems like a combination of WTF? and general rot.

> --D
> 
>> Here is my diff between the golden and the actual
>> output:
> 
>> --- /root/xfstests/tests/xfs/191-input-validation.out	2016-09-21 20:34:14.961574921 +0000
>> +++ /root/xfstests/results//xfs/191-input-validation.out.bad	2020-01-15 15:05:25.580935340 +0000
>> @@ -1,2 +1,13 @@
>>  QA output created by 191-input-validation
>>  silence is golden

supposedly these should fail, but they pass:

>> +pass -n size=2b /dev/vdc
>> +pass -d agsize=8192b /dev/vdc
>> +pass -d agsize=65536s /dev/vdc

I don't know why it wouldn't be valid to use block & sector units for these
values.  But this whole mkfs reworking discussion was so long ago :(

>> +pass -d su=0,sw=64 /dev/vdc

not sure why this passes

>> +pass -d su=4096s,sw=64 /dev/vdc
>> +pass -d su=4096b,sw=64 /dev/vdc

s & b suffixes seem to be ignored here, which seems like a bug.

>> +pass -l su=10b /dev/vdc

again this seems to DTRT.


according to the test, these should pass, but they fail:

>> +fail -n log=15 /dev/vdc

uh, "-n log=" isn't even a mkfs option so of course it fails

>> +fail -r rtdev=/mnt/test/191-input-validation.img /dev/vdc

this fails because reflink is default now

>> +fail -r size=65536,rtdev=/mnt/test/191-input-validation.img /dev/vdc

ditto

>> +fail -i log=10 /dev/vdc

-i log is not a valid option either so of course it fails.

My first thought was to nuke it all, but I think the test could be salvaged
by anyone motivated to do so.

-Eric