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] generic: test for number of bytes used by files after buffered writes

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:13:56AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Eryu Guan <eg...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 03:23:35AM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > >> From: Filipe Manana <fdman...@suse.com> >

Re: [PATCH] generic: test for number of bytes used by files after buffered writes

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 03:23:35AM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana > > Test that a filesystem's implementation of the stat(2) system call > reports correct values for the number of blocks allocated for a file > when there are delayed allocations. > >

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

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 03:09:23PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > As long as we don't modify the on-disk data, fiemap result should always > be constant. > > Operation like cycle mount and sleep should not affect fiemap result. > While unfortunately, btrfs doesn't follow that behavior. > > Btrfs

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: Check if btrfs will create inline-then-regular file extents

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:01:39AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Btrfs allows inline file extent if and only if > 1) It's at offset 0 > 2) It's smaller than min(max_inline, page_size) >Although we don't specify if the size is before compression or after >compression. >At least according to

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fstests: btrfs: Test inband dedupe with data balance.

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 05:08:51PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Btrfs balance will reloate date extent, but its hash is removed too late ^^^ relocate > at run_delayed_ref() time, which will cause extent ref increased > during balance, cause either find_data_references() gives

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Btrfs in-band de-duplication test cases

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 03:36:54PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 03/21/2017 03:23 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:50:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > Btrfs in-band de-duplication test cases for in-memory backend, which > > > cov

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Btrfs in-band de-duplication test cases

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:50:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Btrfs in-band de-duplication test cases for in-memory backend, which covers > the bugs exposed during the development. Sorry, I'm having trouble enabling inband dedupe in tests, I always get ioctl failure, $seqres.full shows:

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Btrfs in-band de-duplication test cases

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:22:33PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 03/21/2017 12:51 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > Hi Qu, > > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 05:08:48PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > Btrfs in-band de-duplication test cases for in-memory backend, which

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Btrfs in-band de-duplication test cases

Hi Qu, On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 05:08:48PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Btrfs in-band de-duplication test cases for in-memory backend, which covers > the bugs exposed during the development. Do you have a kernel tree that contains the in-band patches so that I and others could try and run these

Re: [PATCH 2/3] fstests: btrfs: Add testcase for btrfs dedupe and metadata balance race test

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:50:27AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Btrfs balance with inband dedupe enable/disable will expose a lot of > hidden dedupe bug: > > 1) Enable/disable race bug > 2) Btrfs dedupe tree balance corrupted delayed_ref > 3) Btrfs disable and balance will cause balance BUG_ON > >

Re: [PATCH 1/3] fstests: btrfs: Add basic test for btrfs in-band de-duplication

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:50:25AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Add basic test for btrfs in-band de-duplication(inmemory backend), including: > 1) Enable > 3) Dedup rate > 4) File correctness > 5) Disable > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo I haven't looked into this patchset

Re: [PATCH] fstests: generic: Test space allocation when there is only fragmented space

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:01:05AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Any comment on this patch? It's already committed, see commit 726726d. 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 majordomo info at

Re: [PATCH] btrfs/139: creation/deletion within qgroup limits

[please cc linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org for btrfs specific tests] On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 04:37:16PM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: > From: Goldwyn Rodrigues > > If we create and delete files within the qgroup limits, qg->reserved > (allocations before commits) over-inflates

Re: [PATCH 3/4] reflink: test adjacency of reflinked blocks

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 08:31:50AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:15:02PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 05:12:57PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.w...@oracle.com> > > > > &g

Re: [PATCH 3/4] reflink: test adjacency of reflinked blocks

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 05:12:57PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > From: Darrick J. Wong > > If we reflink a file with N blocks to another file one block at a time, > does the destination file end up with the same number of extents as the > source file? In other words,

Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: test decompression in the middle of large extents

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 06:32:49PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > From: Omar Sandoval > > This is a regression test for "Btrfs: fix btrfs_decompress_buf2page()". > It fails for zlib on v4.10-rc[1-7]. > > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval > --- > This runs in <60

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: Use compressible data

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 09:50:28PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > /dev/urandom is incompressible and, /dev/zero is highly compressible, > so both are less effective in testing the compress code logic in btrfs. > > This patch introduces a text data generator > cat /dev/urandom | od I noticed that

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add regression test for setxattr on subvolume directory

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:30:32PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 01/25/2017 05:20 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:50:29PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > From: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com> > > > > > > This is a regr

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add regression test for setxattr on subvolume directory

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:50:29PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > From: Omar Sandoval > > This is a regression test for "Btrfs: disable xattr operations on > subvolume directories". On v4.9, it will result in an aborted > transaction. > > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval

Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] fstests: test btrfs incremental send after moving a directory

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 03:13:37AM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana > > Test that an incremental send operation works after moving a directory > into a new parent directory, deleting its previous parent directory and > creating a new inode that has the

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: btrfs/047: check btrfs-convert with extent and non-extent source

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 07:17:02AM +0530, Lakshmipathi.G wrote: > Signed-off-by: Lakshmipathi.G Need detailed test description in commit log too. > --- > tests/btrfs/047 | 108 > > tests/btrfs/047.out | 1 +

Re: [PATCH] fstests: generic: splitted large dio write could trigger assertion on btrfs

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 02:22:06PM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > On btrfs, if a large dio write (>=128MB) got splitted, the outstanding_extents > assertion would complain. Note that CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT is required. > > Regression test for > Btrfs: adjust outstanding_extents counter properly when dio

Re: [PATCH] fstests: Fix inconsistent xfs_io error report caused false alert

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:37:08PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Test case like generic/304 and generic/158 can cause false alert due to > the error output change of xfs_io. > > For error case, xfs_io mostly reports error like "dedupe: ERROR STRING" > while under certain case, it reports error like

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: btrfs/006: Fix false alert due to output change

On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 10:16:17PM -0500, Su Yue wrote: > Btrfs-progs v4.9 changed "device status" output by adding one more > space, which differs from golden output. > Fix it by using filter '_filter_spaces' to convert multi space into one. You missed your SOB line. I added Signed-off-by: Su

Re: [PATCH 2/2] fstests: btrfs/006: Fix false alert due to output change

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:14:10PM -0500, Su Yue wrote: > Btrfs-progs v4.9 changed "device status" output by adding one more > space, which differs from golden output. > > Fix it by introducing new filter to convert multi space into one. > > Signed-off-by: Su Yue > ---

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: Test scrub and replace race for RAID56

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 10:02:51AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Although by design, btrfs scrub and replace share the same code path, so > they are exclusive to each other. > > But the fact is, there is still some critical region not protected well, > so we can have the following kernel panic,

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: Remove btrfs/047 since upstream don't accept stream-version

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 09:24:56AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Btrfs upstream doesn't accept stream-version, so the test is never ran > on upstream kernel nor btrfs-progs. > > Just remove it. > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo Looks fine to me, but I'd like to see an ack or

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fstests: btrfs: Use _require_btrfs_qgroup_report to replace open code

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:20:49PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 12/08/2016 04:47 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:12:13PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > Introduce new _require_btrfs_qgroup_report function, which will check > > > the acces

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fstests: btrfs: Use _require_btrfs_qgroup_report to replace open code

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

Re: [PATCH 2/2] fstests: btrfs: Use _require_btrfs_qgroup_report to replace open code

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 10:04:56AM +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

Re: [PATCH 1/2] fstests: common: rename and enhance _require_btrfs to _require_btrfs_subcommand

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 10:04:55AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Rename _require_btrfs() to _require_btrfs_subcommand() to avoid > confusion, as all other _require_btrfs_* has a quite clear suffix, like > _require_btrfs_mkfs_feature() or _require_btrfs_fs_feature(). > > Also enhance

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Add testcase for fundamental scrub recovery

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 04:38:08PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Despite the scrub test cases in fstests, there is not even one test case > which really checked if scrub can recover data. > > In fact, btrfs scrub for RAID56 will even corrupt correct data stripes. > > So let's start from the needed

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] fstests: common: rename _require_btrfs to _require_btrfs_subcommand

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 04:38:09PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Rename _require_btrfs() to _require_btrfs_subcommand() to avoid > confusion, as all other _require_btrfs_* has a quite clear suffix, like > _require_btrfs_mkfs_feature() or _require_btrfs_fs_feature(). > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo

Re: [PATCH 01/10] fstests: common: Introduce function to check qgroup correctness

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 03:32:54PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Old btrfs qgroup test cases uses fix golden output numbers, which limits > the coverage since they can't handle mount options like compress or > inode_map, and cause false alert. > > Introduce _btrfs_check_scratch_qgroup() function to

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Add testcase for fundamental scrub recovery

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:50:30AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Any comment? Sorry for the late review, I'm planning to look at them this week. 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 majordomo

Re: [PATCH] fstests: Introduce check for explicit SHARED extent flag reporting

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:06:48AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > For fs support reflink, some of them (OK, btrfs again) doesn't split > SHARED flag for extent fiemap reporting. > > For example: > 0 4K 8K >/ File1: Extent 0 \ > /\ > |<- On disk Extent-->|

Re: [PATCH] generic: test concurrent non-overlapping direct I/O on the same extents

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:14:12AM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 01:26:11PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:29:34PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > From: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com> > > > > > &

Re: [PATCH] generic: test concurrent non-overlapping direct I/O on the same extents

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:29:34PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > From: Omar Sandoval > > There have been a couple of logic bugs in `btrfs_get_extent()` which > could lead to spurious -EEXIST errors from read or write. This test > exercises those conditions by having two threads

Re: [PATCH] fstests: generic/098 update test for truncating a file into the middle of a hole

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 02:30:04PM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > This updates generic/098 by adding a sync option, i.e. 'sync' after the second > write, and with btrfs's NO_HOLES, we could still get wrong isize after > remount. > > This gets fixed by the patch > > 'Btrfs: fix truncate down when

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: Check false ENOSPC bug caused by incorrect metadata reserve

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:42:36AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 11/10/2016 10:19 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:34:20AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 11/09/2016 05:43 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: Check false ENOSPC bug caused by incorrect metadata reserve

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:24:38AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 11/08/2016 06:58 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:15:15PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > Due to the fact that btrfs uses different max extent size for > > > compressed and no

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: Check false ENOSPC bug caused by incorrect metadata reserve

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:15:15PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Due to the fact that btrfs uses different max extent size for > compressed and non-compressed write, it calculates metadata reservation > incorrectly. > > This can leads to false ENOSPC alert for compressed write. > > This test case

Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] common/populate: use _require_xfs_io_command() in right place

On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 12:07:26PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > In original common/populate codes, we put _require_xfs_io_command "falloc" and > _require_xfs_io_command "fpunch" in the begin of common/populate, but it's > not appropriate, for fs, which does not support falloc and punch, will not

Re: [PATCH] generic: create and delete files repeatedly to exercise ENOSPC behaviour

On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 06:22:58PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > hi Eryu, > > There has already be a generic/102 doing this test... > Thanks for you kindly review and sorry for wasting your time. I had impression yesterday that we have a case that does exactly the same test, and I searched but

Re: [PATCH] generic: create and delete files repeatedly to exercise ENOSPC behaviour

On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:19:30PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > In btrfs, sometimes though the number of created files' consumed disk space > are not larger than fs's free space, we can still get some ENOSPC error, it > may be that btrfs does not try hard to reclaim disk space(I have sent kernel

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] xfstests: btrfs/134: add test for incremental send which renames a directory already being deleted

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 09:44:06AM +0800, robbieko wrote: > From: Robbie Ko > > Test that an incremental send operation dosen't work because > it tries to rename a directory which is already deleted. > > This test exercises scenarios used to fail in btrfs and are fixed by

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] xfstests: btrfs/131: add test for an incremental send with name collision

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 09:44:03AM +0800, robbieko wrote: > From: Robbie Ko > > Test that an incremental send operation doesn't work because > there's a name collision in the destination and it's not checked > corretly before the rename operation applies. > > This test

Re: [PATCH v3] generic: make 17[1-4] work well when btrfs compression is enabled

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:05:55PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > hi, > > On 10/27/2016 07:25 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:52:11PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > > > When enabling btrfs compression, original codes can not fill fs > > > corr

Re: [PATCH v3] generic: make 17[1-4] work well when btrfs compression is enabled

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:00:29PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > hi, > > On 10/28/2016 01:13 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:52:11PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > > > When enabling btrfs compression, original codes can not fill fs > > > correctly, here we introduce

Re: [PATCH v3] generic: make 17[1-4] work well when btrfs compression is enabled

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:52:11PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > When enabling btrfs compression, original codes can not fill fs > correctly, here we introduce _fill_fs() in common/rc, which'll keep > creating and writing files until enospc error occurs. Note _fill_fs > is copied from

Re: [PATCH] generic: check whether we can truncate heavily reflinked file

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 02:36:59PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang It's better to describe the test a bit in the commit log, e.g. why this test is needed etc., which at least could give us some historical information when we look at this

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: common: Enhance _exclude_scratch_mount_option to handle multiple options

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:52:21AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Enhance _exclude_scratch_mount_option() function to normalize mount > options. > Now it can understand and extract real mount option from string like > "-o opt1,opt2 -oopt3". > > And now we do word grep to handle mount options like

Re: [PATCH] fstests: common: Enhance _exclude_scratch_mount_option to handle multiply options and generic fs type

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:06:39PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 09/06/2016 12:20 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 03:13:33PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > Enhance _exclude_scratch_mount_option() function to get real mount > > > options from $M

Re: [PATCH] fstests: common: Enhance _exclude_scratch_mount_option to handle multiply options and generic fs type

On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 03:13:33PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Enhance _exclude_scratch_mount_option() function to get real mount > options from $MOUNT_OPTIONS. This seems unnecessarily complex to me. > > Now it can understand and extract real mount option from string like > "-o opt1,opt2

Re: [PATCH] generic/159: record error value correctly

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:51:14AM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > This case failed in btrfs, it's because when trying to open an immutable > file, vfs returns EPERM, not EACCESS, fix this. > > Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang > --- > tests/generic/159.out | 2 +- > 1

Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs/132: test for crash if btrfs quota disable is killed while waiting on rescan

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 02:30:22PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > There was a bug in btrfs where the wait for completion of the qgroup > rescan worker could be interrupted, resulting in a crash in the rescan > worker when the quota root goes away. > > It is possible to interrupt the wait during

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs/131: test for umount of read-only fs when quota rescan is paused

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 02:30:21PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > Ensure that we can unmount a read-only file system when quota rescan > is paused from a previous read-write mount. > > If the kernel has a separate bug where we are returning early while > waiting for the rescan worker, we can use

Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: test attr_list_by_handle cursor iteration

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:48:55AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 12:24:48PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > I have to replace false/true with 0/1 to build it on RHEL6. I can fix it > > at commit time if there's no other major updates. > > Simply

Re: [PATCH 17/17] xfs: test realtime rmapbt code

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:48:07PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Test the realtime rmap btree code by exercising various IO patterns > on realtime files. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong > --- > tests/xfs/878 | 88 +++ >

Re: [PATCH 15/17] xfs: scrub fs (if still mounted) at the end of the test

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:47:51PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Teach _check_xfs_filesystem to scrub mounted filesystems before > unmounting and fscking them. This is mostly to test the online > scrub tool... > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong > --- > README

Re: [PATCH 14/17] xfs: more rmapbt tests

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:47:45PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > More tests for the reverse mapping functionality. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong > --- > tests/xfs/876 | 76 +++ > tests/xfs/876.out |4 ++ >

Re: [PATCH 13/17] xfs: test swapext with reflink

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:47:38PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Add a few tests to stress the new swapext code for reflink and rmap. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong > --- > tests/xfs/873 | 107 > + >

Re: [PATCH 12/17] reflink: test cross-mountpoint reflink and dedupe

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:47:32PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Test sharing blocks via reflink and dedupe between two different > mountpoints of the same filesystem. This shouldn't work, since > we don't allow cross-mountpoint functions. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong

Re: [PATCH] generic: test accurate shared extent reporting

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 01:02:12AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 03:46:07PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 12:21:47AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > +_count_holes $testdir/file2 > > > +echo "file1 shared extents

Re: [PATCH] generic: test accurate shared extent reporting

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 12:21:47AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Ensure that we can create a file with a single extent, reflink two > blocks out of the middle of that extent, and the resulting fiemap > reports two shared extents, instead of lazily reporting the entire > huge extent as shared. >

Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: test attr_list_by_handle cursor iteration

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:51:50PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Apparently the XFS attr_list_by_handle ioctl has never actually copied > the cursor contents back to user space, which means that iteration has > never worked. Add a test case for this and see > "xfs: in _attrlist_by_handle, copy

Re: [PATCH 07/17] xfs/128: cycle_mount the scratch device, not the test device

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:47:01PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > This test uses the scratch device, so cycle that, not the test dev. > This is also a xfs_fsr test, so put it in the fsr group. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong > --- > tests/xfs/128 |7 --- >

Re: [PATCH 09/17] common/dmerror: fix mount option issues

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:47:13PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Calling _mount doesn't work when we want to add mount options > such as realtime devices. Since it's just a normal scratch device > mount except for the source device, just call _scratch_mount with > SCRATCH_DEV set to the dmerror

Re: [PATCH 06/17] xfs: run xfs_repair at the end of each test

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:46:54PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Run xfs_repair twice at the end of each test -- once to rebuild > the btree indices, and again with -n to check the rebuild work. Seems like it's two more xfs_repair, three in total :) > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong

Re: [PATCH] xfs: test attr_list_by_handle cursor iteration

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 04:52:51PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Apparently the XFS attr_list_by_handle ioctl has never actually copied > the cursor contents back to user space, which means that iteration has > never worked. Add a test case for this and see the patch > "xfs: in

Re: [PATCH] generic/371: run write(2) and fallocate(2) in parallel

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 03:30:25PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > Currently in btrfs, there is something wrong with fallocate(2)'s data > space reservation, it'll temporarily occupy more data space thant it > really needs, which in turn will impact other operations' data request. > > In this test

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Update quick and auto tag for btrfs group

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:06:07AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Update the following quick/auto tag based on their execution time > 007 > 011 > 050 > 100 > 101 > > Two systems are used to determine their execution time. > One is backed by an SATA spinning rust, whose maximum R/W speed is > about

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: Test send on heavily deduped file

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 01:42:03PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > This test uses $LOAD_FACTOR, so it should be in 'stress' group. And it > > hangs the latest kernel, stop other tests from running, I think we can > > add it to 'dangerous' group as well. > > > > Thanks for this info. > I'm

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: Test send on heavily deduped file

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:44:02AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > For fully deduped file, whose file extents are all pointing to the same > extent, btrfs backref walk can be very time consuming, long enough to > trigger softlock. > > Unfortunately, btrfs send is one of the caller of such backref walk

Re: [PATCH 1/3] btrfs: add test for an incremental send after moving directories around

On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 01:32:08PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana > > Test that an incremental send operation works after doing radical changes > in the directory hierarchy that involve switching the inode that directory > entries point to. > > This

Re: [PATCH v6 00/20] xfstests: minor fixes for the reflink/dedupe tests

Hi Darrick, On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 06:46:02PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Hi all, > > This is the sixth revision of a patchset that adds to xfstests > support for testing reverse-mappings of physical blocks to file and > metadata (rmap); support for testing multiple file logical blocks to >

Re: [PATCH 19/20] xfs: run xfs_repair at the end of each test

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 06:48:01PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Run xfs_repair twice at the end of each test -- once to rebuild > the btree indices, and again with -n to check the rebuild work. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong > --- > common/rc |3 +++ > 1 file

Re: [PATCH 16/20] reflink: test cross-mountpoint reflink and dedupe

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 06:47:42PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Test sharing blocks via reflink and dedupe between two different > mountpoints of the same filesystem. This shouldn't work, since > we don't allow cross-mountpoint functions. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong

Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] fstests: btrfs: test RAID1 device reappear and balanced

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 07:04:06PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > > Thanks for review comments. > more below.. > > On 06/27/2016 05:29 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 07:01:54PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 0

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] btrfs/126,127,128: test feature ioctl and sysfs interfaces

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:14:14PM -0400, je...@suse.com wrote: > From: Jeff Mahoney > > This tests the exporting of feature information from the kernel via > sysfs and ioctl. The first test works whether the sysfs permissions > are correct, if the information exported via sysfs

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs/125: test sysfs exports of allocation and device membership info

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:14:13PM -0400, je...@suse.com wrote: > From: Jeff Mahoney > > This tests the sysfs publishing for btrfs allocation and device > membership info under a number of different layouts, similar to the > btrfs replace test. We test the allocation files only

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] btrfs/124: test global metadata reservation reporting

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:14:12PM -0400, je...@suse.com wrote: > From: Jeff Mahoney > > Btrfs can now report the size of the global metadata reservation > via ioctl and sysfs. > > This test confirms that we get sane results on an empty file system. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] btrfs/048: extend _filter_btrfs_prop_error to handle additional errors

t;je...@suse.com> Reviewed-by: Eryu Guan <eg...@redhat.com> -- 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

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] btrfs feature testing + props fix

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:14:10PM -0400, je...@suse.com wrote: > From: Jeff Mahoney > > Hi all - > > Thanks, Eryu, for the review. The btrfs feature testing changes were a > patchet I wrote three years ago, and it looks like significant cleanup > has happened in the xfstests

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: Regression test for leaking data reserved space

> > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com> Looks good to me. Tested on x86_64 and ppc64 hosts, x86_64 host failed the test as expected, ppc64 host didn't though. Reviewed-by: Eryu Guan <eg...@redhat.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line &quo

Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] fstests: btrfs: test RAID1 device reappear and balanced

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 07:01:54PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > > On 06/21/2016 09:31 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:48:47PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > > From: Anand Jain <anand.j...@oracle.com> > > > > > > The test does the

Re: [PATCH 4/4] fstests: btrfs/126,127,128: test feature ioctl and sysfs interfaces

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:08:34AM -0400, je...@suse.com wrote: > From: Jeff Mahoney > > This tests the exporting of feature information from the kernel via > sysfs and ioctl. The first test works whether the sysfs permissions > are correct, if the information exported via sysfs

Re: [PATCH 3/4] fstests: btrfs/125: test sysfs exports of allocation and device membership info

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:08:33AM -0400, je...@suse.com wrote: > From: Jeff Mahoney > > This tests the sysfs publishing for btrfs allocation and device > membership info under a number of different layouts, similar to the > btrfs replace test. We test the allocation files only

Re: [PATCH 2/4] fstests: btrfs/124: test global metadata reservation reporting

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 03:16:47PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:08:32AM -0400, je...@suse.com wrote: > > From: Jeff Mahoney <je...@suse.com> > > [snip] > > + > > +# get standard environment, filters and checks > > +. .

Re: [PATCH 2/4] fstests: btrfs/124: test global metadata reservation reporting

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:08:32AM -0400, je...@suse.com wrote: > From: Jeff Mahoney > > Btrfs can now report the size of the global metadata reservation > via ioctl and sysfs. > > This test confirms that we get sane results on an empty file system. > > ENOTTY and missing

Re: [PATCH 1/4] fstests: btrfs/048: extend _filter_btrfs_prop_error to handle additional errors

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:08:31AM -0400, je...@suse.com wrote: > From: Jeff Mahoney > > btrfsprogs v4.5.3 changed the formatting of some error messages. This > patch extends the filter for btrfs prop to handle those. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney > --- >

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: btrfs: fix 006 adds _runnt_btrfs_util_prog()

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:34:49PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > > On 06/23/2016 07:18 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:03:59PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 06/23/2016 06:53 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: > > [sn

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: btrfs: fix 006 adds _runnt_btrfs_util_prog()

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:03:59PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > > On 06/23/2016 06:53 PM, Eryu Guan wrote: [snip] > > > diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc > > > index a44fb8750220..2a10fbb2d341 100644 > > > --- a/common/rc > > > +++ b/common/rc &g

Re: [PATCH v2] fstests: btrfs: fix 006 adds _runnt_btrfs_util_prog()

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 06:37:32PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > btrfs fi sync /mnt, now does not output anything for success, > so the 006.out should be updated. > > This change in btrfs-progs was introduced in the commit > b005ca024990569d2de459485682158633937928 >btrfs-progs: fi sync: make

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs: fix 006 adds _runnt_btrfs_util_prog()

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 06:01:36PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > btrfs fi sync /mnt, now does not output anything for success, > so the 006.out should be updated. btrfs-progs v4.4 still outputs "FSSync ''", it'd be good to state starting from which version or commit the behavior changes. > >

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: check truncate can update file size correctly when truncate fails

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 03:36:40PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > In btrfs, when truncate operation fails for enospc reason, file may still > have some disk blocks, but it will fail to update filesize accordingly. > > Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang > --- >

Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] fstests: btrfs: test RAID1 device reappear and balanced

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:48:47PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > From: Anand Jain > > The test does the following: > Initialize a RAID1 with some data > > Re-mount RAID1 degraded with _dev1_ and write up to > half of the FS capacity If test devices are big enough,

Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] fstests: btrfs: add functions to set and reset required number of SCRATCH_DEV_POOL

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:46:03PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > From: Anand Jain > > This patch provides functions > _scratch_dev_pool_get() > _scratch_dev_pool_put() > > Which will help to set/reset SCRATCH_DEV_POOL with the required > number of devices.

BUG: unable to mount btrfs on ppc64 starting from v4.7-rc3 kernel

Hi, I'm unable to mount btrfs on ppc64 hosts and other hosts with 64k pagesize(like aarch64, ppc64le). It seems that it's commit 99e3ecfcb9f4 ("Btrfs: add more validation checks for superblock") introduced this failure, btrfs fails stripesize check. [root@ibm-p8-kvm-09-guest-06 btrfs-progs]#

<    1   2   3   4   5   >