Re: [PATCHv2 3/4] generic/676: Add a new shutdown recovery test

[Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@gmail.com>]

On 22/03/29 05:02PM, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> On 22/03/15 09:55AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 07:58:58PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > > In certain cases (it is noted with ext4 fast_commit feature) that, replay phase
> > > may not delete the right range of blocks (after sudden FS shutdown)
> > > due to some operations which depends on inode->i_size (which during replay of
> > > an inode with fast_commit could be 0 for sometime).
> > > This fstest is added to test for such scenarios for all generic fs.
> > >
> > > This test case is based on the test case shared via Xin Yin.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  tests/generic/676     | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  tests/generic/676.out |  7 +++++
> > >  2 files changed, 79 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100755 tests/generic/676
> > >  create mode 100644 tests/generic/676.out
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tests/generic/676 b/tests/generic/676
> > > new file mode 100755
> > > index 00000000..315edcdf
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/tests/generic/676
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
> > > +#! /bin/bash
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > +# Copyright (c) 2022 IBM Corporation.  All Rights Reserved.
> > > +#
> > > +# FS QA Test 676
> > > +#
> > > +# This test with ext4 fast_commit feature w/o below patch missed to delete the right
> > > +# range during replay phase, since it depends upon inode->i_size (which might not be
> > > +# stable during replay phase, at least for ext4).
> > > +# 0b5b5a62b945a141: ext4: use ext4_ext_remove_space() for fast commit replay delete range
> > > +# (Based on test case shared by Xin Yin <yinxin.x@bytedance.com>)
> > > +#
> > > +
> > > +. ./common/preamble
> > > +_begin_fstest auto shutdown quick log recoveryloop
> >
> > This isn't a looping recovery test.  Maybe we should create a 'recovery'
> > group for tests that only run once?  I think we already have a few
> > fstests like that.
>
> I gave it a thought, but I feel it might be unncessary.
> From a developer/tester perspective who wanted to test anything related to
> recovery would then have to use both recovery and recoveryloop.
> Thoughts?
>
> >
> > > +
> > > +# Override the default cleanup function.
> > > +_cleanup()
> > > +{
> > > +	cd /
> > > +	rm -r -f $tmp.*
> > > +   _scratch_unmount > /dev/null 2>&1
> >
> > I think the test harness does this for you already, right?

Ok, I agree with this. I will remove _scratch_unmount operation
from these two new tests in v3.

-ritesh