Re: [PATCH 0/7] fstests: test Btrfs swapfile support

On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 02:06:30PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 12:09:31AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 02:29:35PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > From: Omar Sandoval > > > > > > This series fixes a couple of

Re: [PATCH 0/7] fstests: test Btrfs swapfile support

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 02:29:35PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > From: Omar Sandoval > > This series fixes a couple of generic swapfile tests and adds some > Btrfs-specific swapfile tests. Btrfs swapfile support is scheduled for > 4.21 [1]. > > 1:

Re: [PATCH v2 rev log added] fstests: btrfs verify hardening agaist duplicate fsid

On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 02:28:21AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > We have a known bug in btrfs, that we let the device path be changed > after the device has been mounted. So using this loop hole the new > copied device would appears as if its mounted immediately after its > been copied. So this test

Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] generic/102 open code dev_size _scratch_mkfs_sized()

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:08:56PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > > On 09/25/2018 06:54 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > > > > On 25.09.2018 07:24, Anand Jain wrote: > > > Open code helps to grep and find out parameter sent to the > > > _scratch_mkfs_sized here. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anand

Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] geneirc/077 fix min size for btrfs

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:24:16PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > If btrfs need to be tested at its default blockgroup which is non-mixed, > then it needs at least 256mb. > > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain (Sorry for the late review..) > --- > tests/generic/077 | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs verify hardening agaist duplicate fsid

On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 04:44:35PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > We have a known bug in btrfs, that we let the device path be changed > after the device has been mounted. So using this loop hole the new > copied device would appears as if its mounted immediately after its > been copied. So this test

Re: [PATCH] test unaligned punch hole at ENOSPC

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 07:47:39PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > Try to punch hole with unaligned size and offset when the FS > returns ENOSPC > > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain > --- > This test case fails on btrfs as of now. > > tests/btrfs/172 | 66 >

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs/149 make it sectorsize independent

On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 02:35:12PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > Originally this test case was designed to work with only 4K sectorsize. > Now enhance it to work with any sector sizes and makes the following > changes: > Output file not to contain any traces of sector size. > Use max_inline=0 mount

Re: [PATCH] generic: test for deduplication between different files

On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 04:41:31PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 09:39:24AM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > >> From: Filipe Manana > >> > >> Test that deduplicati

Re: [PATCH] generic: test for deduplication between different files

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 09:39:24AM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana > > Test that deduplication of an entire file that has a size that is not > aligned to the filesystem's block size into a different file does not > corrupt the destination's file data. > > This test is

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: Add test for corrupted orphan qgroup numbers

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 05:10:29PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 8/10/18 4:54 PM, Filipe Manana wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 8/9/18 5:26 PM, Filipe Manana wrote: > >>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > This bug is

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: btrfs/168 verify device ready after device delete

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 02:01:37PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > This test case verifies if the device ready return success after the > device delete. > > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain Need some helps from btrfs folks to see if it's a valid test. Thanks! Eryu > --- > v1->v2: use _run_btrfs_util_prog

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs/168 verify device ready after device delete

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 04:47:53PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > This test case verifies if the device ready return success after the > device delete. > > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain Looks fine to me overall, but I may need some helps from btrfs folks :) > --- > tests/btrfs/168 | 68 >

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: Test if btrfs will corrupt nodatasum compressed extent when replacing device

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 08:11:00AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > On 1.06.2018 04:34, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > This is a long existing bug (from 2012) but exposed by a reporter > > recently, that when compressed extent without data csum get written to > > device-replace target device, the

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs/085: replace btrfs-debug-tree with btrfs inspect-internal dump-tree

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 03:04:22PM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote: > Since btrfs-dump-tree has been removed from btrfs-progs, use btrfs > inspect-internal dump-tree instead of btrfs-dump-tree. > > Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi Then there's no user of $BTRFS_DEBUG_TREE_PROG, I think we could remove the

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: btrfs: Test if btrfs will corrupt nodatasum compressed extent when replacing device

On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 02:17:23PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > This is a long existing bug (from 2012) but exposed by a reporter > recently, that when compressed extent without data csum get written to > device-replace target device, the written data is in fact uncompressed data > other than the

Re: [PATCH v3] btrfs: Add test that checks rmdir(2) can delete a subvolume

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 03:06:45PM +0900, Misono Tomohiro wrote: > Add btrfs test that checks "rmdir" or "rm -r" command can delete a > subvolume like an ordinary directory. > > This behavior has been restricted long time but becomes allowed by > following commit in the kernel: > btrfs: Allow

Re: [PATCH] generic: add test for fsync of directory after creating hard link

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 07:24:35PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana > > Test that if we create a new hard link for a file which was previously > fsync'ed, fsync a parent directory of the new hard link and power fail, > the parent directory exists after mounting the

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: Test if btrfs will corrupt nodatasum compressed extent when replacing device

On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 09:34:48AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > This is a long existing bug (from 2012) but exposed by a reporter > recently, that when compressed extent without data csum get written to > device-replace target device, the written data is in fact uncompressed data > other than the

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] fstests: btrfs: add seed sprout functionality test

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 05:51:45PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > Create a seed device and add the sprout device to it. > > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain This series looks fine to me from fstests' point of view, there're just some really minor common issues. But I'd like some reviews from other btrfs

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] generic: test invalid swap file activation

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 07:37:07AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 01:38:49PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > From: Omar Sandoval > > > > Swap files cannot have holes, and they must at least two pages. > > swapon(8) and mkswap(8) have stricter

Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] generic: add test for dedupe on an active swapfile

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 01:38:47PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > From: Omar Sandoval > > Similar to generic/356 that makes sure we can't reflink an active ^^^ dedupe I'll fix it on commit. Thanks, Eryu -- To unsubscribe from

Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] generic: enable swapfile tests on Btrfs

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 01:38:46PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > From: Omar Sandoval > > Commit 8c96cfbfe530 ("generic/35[67]: disable swapfile tests on Btrfs") > disabled the swapfile tests on Btrfs because it did not support > swapfiles at the time. Now that we're adding

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: test ENOSPC caused by many orphan items

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 07:14:02PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 09:48:58AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 11:21:55PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > From: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com> > > > > > > Btrfs

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: test ENOSPC caused by many orphan items

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 11:21:55PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > From: Omar Sandoval > > Btrfs has a bug where we can prematurely ENOSPC if we have lots of > orphaned files, i.e., deleted files which are still open. Add a test > which repeatedly creates and deletes a file while

Re: [PATCH] test online label ioctl

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 04:43:18PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > This tests the online label ioctl that btrfs has, which has been > recently proposed for XFS. > > To run, it requires an updated xfs_io with the label command and a > filesystem that supports it > > A slight change here to

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: Add test that checks rmdir(2) can delete a subvolume

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 06:26:35PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:02:45PM +0900, Misono Tomohiro wrote: > > Add btrfs test that checks "rmdir" or "rm -r" command can delete a > > subvolume like an ordinary drectory. > > > > This behavior has been restricted long time but

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: Add test that checks rmdir(2) can delete a subvolume

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:02:45PM +0900, Misono Tomohiro wrote: > Add btrfs test that checks "rmdir" or "rm -r" command can delete a > subvolume like an ordinary drectory. > > This behavior has been restricted long time but becomes allowed by > following patch in the kernel: > btrfs: Allow

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Add test that checks rmdir(2) can delete a subvolume

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 04:23:35PM +0900, Misono Tomohiro wrote: > Add btrfs test that checks "rmdir" or "rm -r" command can delete a > subvolume like an ordinary drectory. > > This behavior has been restricted long time but becomes allowed by > following patch in the kernel: > btrfs: Allow

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add verify chattr support for send/receive test

[adding linux-btrfs list to cc] On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:44:42PM -0700, Howard McLauchlan wrote: > This test aims to verify correct behaviour with chattr operations and > btrfs send/receive. The intent is to check general correctness as well > as special interactions with troublesome

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: test btrfs fsync after hole punching with no-holes mode

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:28:59PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Eryu Guan <guane...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 09:46:24AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Eryu Guan <guane...@gmail.com>

Re: [PATCH v3] fstests: btrfs/159 superblock corruption test case

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 06:43:49AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > > > +# Test if the superblock corruption is handled correctly: > > > +#- Test fsid miss-match (csum ok) between primary and copy > > > superblock > > > +#Fixed by the ML patch: > > > +#btrfs: check if the

Re: [PATCH v3] fstests: btrfs/159 superblock corruption test case

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 01:28:30PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > Verify if the superblock corruption is handled correctly. > > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain > --- > v2->v3: > Provide the disk to be corrupted as an arg, instead of swapping the devices, > so drop

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: test btrfs fsync after hole punching with no-holes mode

On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 09:46:24AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Eryu Guan <guane...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:55:30PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > >> From: Filipe Manana <fdman...@suse.com> > >> &

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: test btrfs fsync after hole punching with no-holes mode

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:55:30PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana > > Test that when we have the no-holes mode enabled and a specific metadata > layout, if we punch a hole and fsync the file, at replay time the whole > hole was preserved. > > This

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: btrfs/159 superblock corruption test case

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 02:28:49PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > Verify if the superblock corruption is handled correctly. > > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain > --- > v1->v2: > $subject slightly changed > Added more info about the test-case > Keep the stuff from the ./new btrfs

Re: [PATCH] fstests: generic test for fsync after fallocate

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 10:56:14PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana > > Test that fsync operations preserve extents allocated with fallocate(2) > that are placed beyond a file's size. > > This test is motivated by a bug found in btrfs where unwritten

Re: [PATCH typo-fixed] fstests: btrfs: 159 superblock corruption test case

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 06:28:48PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > Verify if the superblock corruption is handled correctly. > > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain > --- > tests/btrfs/159 | 142 > > tests/btrfs/159.out | 35

Re: [PATCH] fstests: test btrfs fsync after hole punching with no-holes mode

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 09:48:17AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:17 AM, Eryu Guan <guane...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:59:21PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > >> From: Filipe Manana <fdman...@suse.com> &g

Re: [PATCH] fstests: test btrfs fsync after hole punching with no-holes mode

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:59:21PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana > > Test that when we have the no-holes mode enabled and a specific metadata > layout, if we punch a hole and fsync the file, at replay time the whole > hole was preserved. > > This

Re: [PATCH 3/3] fstests: generic: Check the fs after each FUA writes

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:22:29PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > + > > +_log_writes_mount > > +$FSSTRESS_PROG $fsstress_args > /dev/null 2>&1 > > You should run fsstress with run_check() so output will go to $seqres.full > this way if you are able to catch a bug, you can take the random seed >

Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] fstests: generic: Check the fs after each FUA writes

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 05:02:30PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Basic test case which triggers fsstress with dm-log-writes, and then > check the fs after each FUA writes. > With needed infrastructure and special handlers for journal based fs. > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo > --- > In

Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] fstests: generic: Check the fs after each FUA writes

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:17:07PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2018年03月16日 12:01, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 05:02:30PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >> Basic test case which triggers fsstress with dm-log-writes, and then > >> c

Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] fstests: generic: Check the fs after each FUA writes

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 05:02:30PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Basic test case which triggers fsstress with dm-log-writes, and then > check the fs after each FUA writes. > With needed infrastructure and special handlers for journal based fs. It's not clear to me why the existing infrastructure is

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: test regression of -EEXIST on creating new file after log replay

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 04:56:04PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > The regression is introduced to btrfs in linux v4.4 and it refuses to create > new files after log replay by returning -EEXIST. > > Although the problem is on btrfs only, there is no btrfs stuff in terms of > test, so this makes it

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: btrfs/146: make sure hit all stripes in the case of compression

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 01:56:45PM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote: > In the case of compression, each 128K input data chunk will be compressed > to 4K (because of the characters written are duplicate). Therefore we have > to write (128K * 16) to make sure every stripe can be hit. > > Signed-off-by: Lu

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs/004: increase the buffer size of logical-resolve to the maximum value 64K

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 03:02:31PM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote: > Because of commit e76e13ce8c0b ("fsstress: implement the > clonerange/deduperange ioctls"), dedupe makes the number of references to > the same extent item increase so much that the default 4K buffer of > logical-resolve is no longer

Re: [PATCH] fstests: common/rc: fix device still mounted error with SCRATCH_DEV_POOL

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:10:20PM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 02:22:28PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:04:59PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > > > One of btrfs tests, btrfs/011, uses SCRATCH_DEV_POOL and puts a > > > non-SCRATCH_DE

Re: [PATCH] fstests: common/rc: fix device still mounted error with SCRATCH_DEV_POOL

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:04:59PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > One of btrfs tests, btrfs/011, uses SCRATCH_DEV_POOL and puts a > non-SCRATCH_DEV > device as the first one when doing mkfs, and this makes > _require_scratch{_nocheck} fail to umount $SCRATCH_MNT since it checks mount > point with

Re: [PATCH 1/5] fstests: filter: Introduce filter to filter out offset for xfs_io

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 02:55:57PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Some test cases (AFAIK, btrfs RAID recovery test cases) read out certain > location to verify its data. > > Such read is mostly OK, but the golden output contains the on-disk > offset, which can differ due to underlying chunk change. >

Re: [PATCH] generic/015: Change the test filesystem size to 101mb

On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 10:43:30AM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > This test has been failing for btrfs for quite some time, > at least since 4.7. There are 2 implementation details of btrfs that > it exposes: > > 1. Currently btrfs filesystem under 100mb are created in Mixed block > group mode.

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs/158: reproduce a scrub bug on raid6 corruption

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 01:35:00PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > This is to reproduce a bug of scrub, with which scrub is unable to > repair raid6 corruption as expected. > > The kernel side fixes are > Btrfs: make raid6 rebuild retry more > Btrfs: fix scrub to repair raid6 corruption > >

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: Add test case to check if btrfs can handle full fs trim correctly

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 08:43:43AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Ping. > > Any comment on this? It's been pushed out to upstream, see commit 88231c0c0b9d Thanks, Eryu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: reproduce a read failure on raid6 setup

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:33:23PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > This test case is to reproduce a bug of raid6 reconstruction process. > > The kernel fix are > Btrfs: do not merge rbios if their fail stripe index are not identical > Btrfs: make raid6 rebuild retry more > > Signed-off-by: Liu Bo

Re: [PATCH] btrfs/057: Fix test case to work on 64K page size

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 12:15:45PM +0530, Harish wrote: > On platforms with a page size greater than 4Kb, at the moment btrfs > doesn't support a node/leaf size smaller than the page size, but it > supports a larger one. So use the max supported node size (64Kb) so > that the test runs on any

Re: [PATCH] btrfs/124: add balance --full-balance option

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:30:33PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2017年12月05日 16:26, Anand Jain wrote: > > btrfs balance needs --full-balance option since 4.6, so check the > > version and then use it. > > > > As this may be useful for other btrfs tests as well, so this patch > > adds

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs/154: test for device dynamic rescan

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:15AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > Make sure missing device is included in the alloc list when it is > scanned on a mounted FS. > > This test case needs btrfs kernel patch which is in the ML > [PATCH] btrfs: handle dynamically reappearing missing device > Without the

Re: [PATCH] btrfs/154: test for device dynamic rescan

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:25:41AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > Make sure missing device is included in the alloc list when it is > scanned on a mounted FS. > > This test case needs btrfs kernel patch which is in the ML > [PATCH] btrfs: handle dynamically reappearing missing device > Without the

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: add test case for raid6 reconstruction bug

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:01:23PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote: > This is to reproduce a raid6 reconstruction bug after two drives > getting offline and online via hotplug. > > Signed-off-by: James Alandt > Signed-off-by: Liu Bo I don't have 5 deletable pool

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: Add message indicating btrfs-progs support FST in read-only mode

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 07:16:02AM +, Gu, Jinxiang wrote: > Hi, > > > -Original Message- > > From: Eryu Guan [mailto:eg...@redhat.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:52 PM > > To: Gu, Jinxiang/顾 金香 <g...@cn.fujitsu.com> > >

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: Add message indicating btrfs-progs support FST in read-only mode

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 01:57:46PM +0800, Gu Jinxiang wrote: > From: Gu JinXiang > > btrfs-progs now support FST in read-only mode, so when space_cache=v2 > enabled, this test case will fail. > Add message to help user to understand this status. Sorry, I don't quite

Re: [PATCH v2] Fstest: btrfs/151: test if device delete ends up with losing raid profile

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:40:05PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote: > Currently running 'btrfs device delete' can end up with losing data > raid profile (if any), this test is to reproduce the problem. > > The fix is > "Btrfs: avoid losing data raid profile when deleting a device" > > Signed-off-by:

Re: [PATCH] Fstest: btrfs/151: test if device delete ends up with losing raid profile

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:39:21AM -0600, Liu Bo wrote: > Currently running 'btrfs device delete' can end up with losing data raid > profile (if any), this test is to reproduce the problem. > > The fix is > "Btrfs: avoid losing data raid profile when deleting a device" > > Signed-off-by:

Re: [ANNOUNCE] fsperf: a simple fs/block performance testing framework

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 04:17:31PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 10:25:10PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:51:37AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:09:57PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > One

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: btrfs/150 regression test for reading compressed data

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 05:18:51PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:37:52PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 05:02:36PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 05:21:27PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote: > > > > We had a bug in btrf

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: btrfs/150 regression test for reading compressed data

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 05:21:27PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote: > We had a bug in btrfs compression code which could end up with a > kernel panic. > > This is adding a regression test for the bug and I've also sent a > kernel patch to fix the bug. > > The patch is "Btrfs: fix kernel oops while reading

Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfstests: Split MOUNT_OPTIONS to TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS and MOUNT_OPTIONS

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 04:11:09PM +0800, Gu Jinxiang wrote: > Resovle the inconsistent of mount option. > Btrfs use MOUNT_OPTIONS for both scrath_dev and test_dev. Change to > MOUNT_OPTIONS for scratch mount, and TEST_FS_MOUNT_OPTS for test dev > mount. > > Signed-off-by: Gu Jinxiang

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add new common filter function

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 10:14:41AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Eryu Guan <eg...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 02:39:44PM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote: > >> Several tests uses both _filter_test_dir and _filter_scratch &

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add new common filter function

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 02:39:44PM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote: > Several tests uses both _filter_test_dir and _filter_scratch > concatenated by pipe to filter $TEST_DIR and $SCRATCH_MNT. However, this > would fail if the shorter string is a substring of the other (like > "/mnt" and "/mnt2"). >

Re: [PATCH] btrfs/029: fix wrong usage of name filter

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 09:44:59AM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote: > Ok. I will do that if you won't, though I'm not sure other combination of > filters would pose the similar problem. Thanks! Then I'll test :) Eryu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the

Re: [PATCH] btrfs/029: fix wrong usage of name filter

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:53:09AM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote: > On 2017/08/30 20:09, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 04:38:16PM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote: > >> btrfs/029 uses _filter_testdirs() to filter the name of $TEST_DIR and > >

Re: [PATCH] btrfs/029: fix wrong usage of name filter

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 04:38:16PM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote: > btrfs/029 uses _filter_testdirs() to filter the name of $TEST_DIR and > $SCRATCH_MNT directory. > > In this function, it calls both _filter_test_dir and _filter_scratch > concatenated by pipe. Therefore if $TEST_DIR is a prefix

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: enhance regression test for nocsum dio read's repair

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 03:03:13PM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote: > I catch this following error from dmesg when this testcase fails. > > [17446.661127] Buffer I/O error on dev sdb1, logical block 64, async page read > > We expect to inject disk IO errors on the device when xfs_io reads the > specific

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: test if receive with qgroups corrupts metadata

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 04:03:33PM -0700, Justin Maggard wrote: > This test case does some concurrent send/receives with qgroups enabled. > Currently (4.13-rc1) this usually results in btrfs check errors, and > often also results in a WARN_ON in record_root_in_trans(). > > Bisecting points to

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: test direct IO write against raid5/6 filesystems

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 03:10:40PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana > > Test that a direct IO write works against raid5/6 filesystems and that > after the write operation we are able to read back the correct data > and scrub operations don't find any

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs/146: Test various btrfs operations rounding behavior

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 04:25:43PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:50:35AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > When changing the size of disks/filesystem we should always be > > rounding down to a multiple of sectorsize > > > > Signed-off-by: Nikolay

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs/146: Test various btrfs operations rounding behavior

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:50:35AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > When changing the size of disks/filesystem we should always be > rounding down to a multiple of sectorsize > > Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov Thanks for the update! But I still need some reviews from btrfs

Re: [PATCH] btrfs/145: Test various btrfs operations rounding behavior

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 04:45:38PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > When changing the size of disks/filesystem we should always be > rounding down to a multiple of sectorsize. This is a test for the following > btrfs patche: > > btrfs: Round up values which are written for total_bytes_size > >

Re: [xfstests PATCH v4 5/5] btrfs: make a btrfs version of writeback error reporting test

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 07:55:17AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 16:40 +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:42:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > Make a new btrfs/999 test that works the way Chris Mason suggested: > > > >

Re: [xfstests PATCH v4 5/5] btrfs: make a btrfs version of writeback error reporting test

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:42:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > Make a new btrfs/999 test that works the way Chris Mason suggested: > > Build a filesystem with 2 devices that stripes the data across > both devices, but mirrors metadata across both. Then, make one > of the devices fail and see how

Re: [xfstests PATCH v4 2/5] ext4: allow ext4 to use $SCRATCH_LOGDEV

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:42:10AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > The writeback error handling test requires that you put the journal on a > separate device. This allows us to use dmerror to simulate data > writeback failure, without affecting the journal. > > xfs already has infrastructure for this

Re: [xfstests PATCH v4 1/5] generic: add a writeback error handling test

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:42:09AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > I'm working on a set of kernel patches to change how writeback errors > are handled and reported in the kernel. Instead of reporting a > writeback error to only the first fsync caller on the file, I aim > to make the kernel report them

Re: [xfstests PATCH v4 0/5] new tests for writeback error reporting behavior

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:42:08AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > v4: respin set based on Eryu's comments > > These tests are companion tests to the patchset I recently posted with > the cover letter: > > [PATCH v6 00/20] fs: enhanced writeback error reporting with errseq_t > (pile #1) > >

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: test Btrfs delalloc accounting overflow

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:34:13AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:36:45PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:57:10PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > From: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com> > > > > > > This is

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: test Btrfs delalloc accounting overflow

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:57:10PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > From: Omar Sandoval > > This is a regression test for "[PATCH] Btrfs: fix delalloc accounting > leak caused by u32 overflow". It creates a bunch of delalloc extents and > merges them together to make sure the

Re: [PATCH] generic: test Btrfs delalloc accounting overflow

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:03:05PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 12:37:00AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > This looks like a btrfs-specific test, and not like a generic one > > to me. > > Nothing about the workload itself is btrfs-specific, we just have the > extra

Re: [PATCH] generic: test Btrfs delalloc accounting overflow

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 02:46:52PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 12:07:37PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > +# Make sure that we didn't leak any metadata space. > > > +if [[ $FSTYP = btrfs ]]; then > > > + uuid="$(findmnt -n -o UUID "$TEST_DIR")" > > > > if we are on

Re: [PATCH] fstests: common: Make _test_mount to include MOUNT_OPTIONS to allow consistent _test_cycle_mount

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 05:27:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 05/24/2017 05:22 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 03:58:11PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > > > > > At 05/24/2017 01:16 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > &g

Re: [PATCH] fstests: common: Make _test_mount to include MOUNT_OPTIONS to allow consistent _test_cycle_mount

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 03:58:11PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 05/24/2017 01:16 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > > At 05/24/2017 01:08 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:28:34PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH] fstests: common: Make _test_mount to include MOUNT_OPTIONS to allow consistent _test_cycle_mount

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:28:34PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 05/24/2017 12:24 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:22:25AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > > > > > At 05/23/2017 07:13 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > > On

Re: [PATCH] fstests: common: Make _test_mount to include MOUNT_OPTIONS to allow consistent _test_cycle_mount

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:22:25AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 05/23/2017 07:13 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 04:02:05PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > [BUG] > > > If using MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o nodatasum" and btrfs to run ge

Re: [PATCH] fstests: common: Make _test_mount to include MOUNT_OPTIONS to allow consistent _test_cycle_mount

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 04:02:05PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > [BUG] > If using MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o nodatasum" and btrfs to run genierc/142 > generic/143 and generic/154, it will cause false alert like: > cp: failed to clone '/mnt/test/test-154/file2' from > '/mnt/test/test-154/file1': Invalid

Re: [PATCH 6/6] fstests: regression test for nocsum buffered read's repair

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:56:11AM -0600, Liu Bo wrote: > This is to test whether buffered read retry-repair code is able to work in > raid1 case as expected. > > Please note that without checksum, btrfs doesn't know if the data used to > repair is correct, so repair is more of resync which makes

Re: [PATCH 3/6] fstests: regression test for btrfs dio read repair

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:56:08AM -0600, Liu Bo wrote: > This case tests whether dio read can repair the bad copy if we have > a good copy. > > Commit 2dabb3248453 ("Btrfs: Direct I/O read: Work on sectorsized blocks") > introduced the regression. > > The upstream fix is > Btrfs: fix

Re: [PATCH 2/6] fstests: add _get_current_dmesg

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:56:07AM -0600, Liu Bo wrote: > _get_current_dmesg can be used to grep customized pattern. > > Signed-off-by: Liu Bo I can't apply this patch on top of current master, perhaps it needs a rebase :) > --- > common/rc | 9 +++-- > 1 file

Re: [PATCH v3] fstests: regression test for btrfs dio read repair

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:25:52AM -0600, Liu Bo wrote: > This case tests whether dio read can repair the bad copy if we have > a good copy. > > Commit 2dabb3248453 ("Btrfs: Direct I/O read: Work on sectorsized blocks") > introduced the regression. > > The upstream fix is > Btrfs: fix

Re: [PATCH] fstests: introduce btrfs-map-logical

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:52:23PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > > I understand that we need to do corruption so that we can test if the > > > repair works, but I'm not sure if the output format will change, or if > > > the program will get replace by "btrfs inspect-internal" group. > > > > In

Re: Does btrfs get nlink on directories wrong? -- was Re: [PATCH 2/4] xfstests: Add first statx test [ver #5]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:32:30PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:30 PM, David Sterba wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:53:41AM +0100, David Howells wrote: > >> I've added a test to xfstests that exercises the new statx syscall. > >> However, > >>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] common/rc: test that xfs_io's falloc command supports specific flags

ms that don't support it. > > Suggested-by: Eryu Guan <eg...@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdman...@suse.com> > --- > common/rc | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > index e1ab2c6..3d0

Re: [PATCH] fstests: generic: Check if cycle mount and sleep can affect fiemap result

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:28:01AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 4/6/17 11:26 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:35:26AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > >> > >> Test fails with ext3/2 when driving with ext4 driver, fiemap changed > >> after u

  1   2   3   4   5   >