On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:12:13PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Introduce new _require_btrfs_qgroup_report function, which will check > the accessibility to "btrfs check --qgroup-report", then set a global > flag to info _check_scratch_fs() to do extra qgroup check. > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]> > --- > v2: > Use "${RESULT_DIR}/require_scratch.require_qgroup_report" instead of > global variant > Rebased to latest master > Replace btrfsck with $BTRFS_UTIL_PROG check. [snip] > diff --git a/tests/btrfs/042 b/tests/btrfs/042 > index 498ccc9..dc9b762 100755 > --- a/tests/btrfs/042 > +++ b/tests/btrfs/042 > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ _cleanup() > _supported_fs btrfs > _supported_os Linux > _require_scratch > +_require_btrfs_qgroup_report > > rm -f $seqres.full > > @@ -84,10 +85,7 @@ for i in `seq 10 -1 1`; do > total_written=$(($total_written+$filesize)) > done > > -#check if total written exceeds limit > -if [ $total_written -gt $LIMIT_SIZE ];then > - _fail "total written should be less than $LIMIT_SIZE" > -fi > +# qgroup will be checked automatically at _check_scratch_fs() by fstest
This doesn't look like an equivalent replacement, and btrfs/042 fails for me after this update (wrong qgroup numbers) on 4.9-rc4 kernel. Is this change intentional? Thanks, Eryu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
