On 9/9/13 12:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:32:04PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 02:50:56PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> We need to start adding some sanity tests to btrfs-progs to make sure we >>> aren't >>> breaking things with our patches. The most important of these tools is >>> btrfsck. >>> This patch gets things started by adding a basic btrfsck test that makes >>> sure we >>> can fix a corruption problem we know we can fix. Thanks, >> >> That's great. I hope we're going to gather more tests so let's separate >> them to more categories from the beginning (mkfs, options coverage, >> corrupt-block, restore maybe, dunno what else). >> >> This makes it possible to do a quick run a subset of the tests (eg. mkfs >> related) after a fix is committed. >> >>> tests/bad-file-extent-bytenr.img | Bin 0 -> 4096 bytes >>> tests/fsck-tests.sh | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> I suggest to put them into a subdirectory (eg.) 'fsck' and prefix the >> images with numbers (just a sequence number). > > I'm not prefixing with numbers, I want to make it easy to tell what each image > is testing for. I will move them into a fsck directory tho.
David might have meant "001-bad-file-extent-bytenr.img" though. >> >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/tests/fsck-tests.sh >>> @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ >>> +#!/bin/bash >>> +# >>> +# loop through all of our bad images and make sure fsck repairs them >>> properly >>> +# >>> +# It's GPL, same as everything else in this tree. >>> +# >>> + >>> +TEST_DEV="" >> >> I found the current test hard to use, eg. I can't just do 'make test' >> from the toplevel dir. The script fsck-tests.sh expects TEST_DEV to be >> set, but there's no way to do that, because it's set unconditionally to >> empty string. > > Yeah I wasn't sure how I wanted to do this. At first I thought about making > the > fsck tester just make a loop device, but I didn't want to override something > if > people were already using a loop device. But maybe I'll just default to using > loop5 or something big like that and then if the user wants to change it they > can go into the script and change it themselves. How does that sound? > Thanks, Dumb question, can you just point btrfsck at the image itself w/o setting up loopback? i.e. do something like: # btrfs-image -r 001-bad-file-extent-bytenr.img test.img # btrfsck --repair test.img -Eric > Josef > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
