| Message ID | 1392034256-2412-1-git-send-email-wangshilong1991@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
On 02/10/2014 07:10 AM, Wang Shilong wrote: > From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > > So i was wandering why test 004 could pass my previous wrong > kernel patch while it defenitely should not. > > By some debugging, i found here perl script is wrong, we did not > filter out anything and this unit test did not work acutally.so > it came out we will never fail this test. > So now with this patch I'm failing it, is there some btrfs patch I need to make it not fail or is it still not supposed to fail normally and is this patch broken? Thanks, Josef -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:10:56PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote: > From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > > So i was wandering why test 004 could pass my previous wrong > kernel patch while it defenitely should not. > > By some debugging, i found here perl script is wrong, we did not > filter out anything and this unit test did not work acutally.so > it came out we will never fail this test. > > Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > --- > tests/btrfs/004 | 7 +++---- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > mode change 100755 => 100644 tests/btrfs/004 > > diff --git a/tests/btrfs/004 b/tests/btrfs/004 > old mode 100755 > new mode 100644 > index 14da9f1..17a6e34 > --- a/tests/btrfs/004 > +++ b/tests/btrfs/004 > @@ -57,10 +57,9 @@ _require_command "/usr/sbin/filefrag" > > rm -f $seqres.full > > -FILEFRAG_FILTER='if (/, blocksize (\d+)/) {$blocksize = $1; next} ($ext, '\ > -'$logical, $physical, $expected, $length, $flags) = (/^\s*(\d+)\s+(\d+)'\ > -'\s+(\d+)\s+(?:(\d+)\s+)?(\d+)\s+(.*)/) or next; $flags =~ '\ > -'/(?:^|,)inline(?:,|$)/ and next; print $physical * $blocksize, "#", '\ > +FILEFRAG_FILTER='if (/blocks of (\d+) bytes/) {$blocksize = $1; next} ($ext, '\ > +'$logical, $physical, $length) = (/^\s*(\d+):\s+(\d+)..\s+\d+:'\ > +'\s+(\d+)..\s+\d+:\s+(\d+):/) or next; print $physical * $blocksize, "#", '\ > '$length * $blocksize, "#", $logical * $blocksize, " "' Oh, boy, who allowed that mess to pass review? Please format this in a readable manner while you are changing it. FILEFRAG_FILTER=' if (/blocks of (\d+) bytes/) { \ $blocksize = $1; \ next; \ } ..... Cheers, Dave.
Hi Josef, On 02/11/2014 03:18 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > On 02/10/2014 07:10 AM, Wang Shilong wrote: >> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >> >> So i was wandering why test 004 could pass my previous wrong >> kernel patch while it defenitely should not. >> >> By some debugging, i found here perl script is wrong, we did not >> filter out anything and this unit test did not work acutally.so >> it came out we will never fail this test. >> > > So now with this patch I'm failing it, is there some btrfs patch I > need to make it not fail or is it still not supposed to fail normally > and is this patch broken? Thanks, You should not have updated my previous patch(Btrfs: switch to btrfs_previous_extent_item()) when you fail this test. I update your latest btrfs-next which has updated my previous patch and it can pass this case, did you miss that? Thanks, Wang > > Josef > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 02/11/2014 05:39 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:10:56PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote: >> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >> >> So i was wandering why test 004 could pass my previous wrong >> kernel patch while it defenitely should not. >> >> By some debugging, i found here perl script is wrong, we did not >> filter out anything and this unit test did not work acutally.so >> it came out we will never fail this test. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >> --- >> tests/btrfs/004 | 7 +++---- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> mode change 100755 => 100644 tests/btrfs/004 >> >> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/004 b/tests/btrfs/004 >> old mode 100755 >> new mode 100644 >> index 14da9f1..17a6e34 >> --- a/tests/btrfs/004 >> +++ b/tests/btrfs/004 >> @@ -57,10 +57,9 @@ _require_command "/usr/sbin/filefrag" >> >> rm -f $seqres.full >> >> -FILEFRAG_FILTER='if (/, blocksize (\d+)/) {$blocksize = $1; next} ($ext, '\ >> -'$logical, $physical, $expected, $length, $flags) = (/^\s*(\d+)\s+(\d+)'\ >> -'\s+(\d+)\s+(?:(\d+)\s+)?(\d+)\s+(.*)/) or next; $flags =~ '\ >> -'/(?:^|,)inline(?:,|$)/ and next; print $physical * $blocksize, "#", '\ >> +FILEFRAG_FILTER='if (/blocks of (\d+) bytes/) {$blocksize = $1; next} ($ext, '\ >> +'$logical, $physical, $length) = (/^\s*(\d+):\s+(\d+)..\s+\d+:'\ >> +'\s+(\d+)..\s+\d+:\s+(\d+):/) or next; print $physical * $blocksize, "#", '\ >> '$length * $blocksize, "#", $logical * $blocksize, " "' > Oh, boy, who allowed that mess to pass review? Please format this in > a readable manner while you are changing it. Yeah, i was thinking to make it more readable while i had sent this out.^_^ Thanks for your comments. Wang > > FILEFRAG_FILTER=' > if (/blocks of (\d+) bytes/) { \ > $blocksize = $1; \ > next; \ > } > ..... > > Cheers, > > Dave. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 02/10/2014 08:22 PM, Wang Shilong wrote: > Hi Josef, > > On 02/11/2014 03:18 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> >> >> On 02/10/2014 07:10 AM, Wang Shilong wrote: >>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>> >>> So i was wandering why test 004 could pass my previous wrong >>> kernel patch while it defenitely should not. >>> >>> By some debugging, i found here perl script is wrong, we did not >>> filter out anything and this unit test did not work acutally.so >>> it came out we will never fail this test. >>> >> >> So now with this patch I'm failing it, is there some btrfs patch I >> need to make it not fail or is it still not supposed to fail normally >> and is this patch broken? Thanks, > You should not have updated my previous patch(Btrfs: switch to > btrfs_previous_extent_item()) when you fail this test. > I update your latest btrfs-next which has updated my previous patch > and it can pass this case, did you miss that? Hrm I must not have insmod'ed the new module, which now means I have to re-run all my tests, sigh. Josef -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/tests/btrfs/004 b/tests/btrfs/004 old mode 100755 new mode 100644 index 14da9f1..17a6e34 --- a/tests/btrfs/004 +++ b/tests/btrfs/004 @@ -57,10 +57,9 @@ _require_command "/usr/sbin/filefrag" rm -f $seqres.full -FILEFRAG_FILTER='if (/, blocksize (\d+)/) {$blocksize = $1; next} ($ext, '\ -'$logical, $physical, $expected, $length, $flags) = (/^\s*(\d+)\s+(\d+)'\ -'\s+(\d+)\s+(?:(\d+)\s+)?(\d+)\s+(.*)/) or next; $flags =~ '\ -'/(?:^|,)inline(?:,|$)/ and next; print $physical * $blocksize, "#", '\ +FILEFRAG_FILTER='if (/blocks of (\d+) bytes/) {$blocksize = $1; next} ($ext, '\ +'$logical, $physical, $length) = (/^\s*(\d+):\s+(\d+)..\s+\d+:'\ +'\s+(\d+)..\s+\d+:\s+(\d+):/) or next; print $physical * $blocksize, "#", '\ '$length * $blocksize, "#", $logical * $blocksize, " "' # this makes filefrag output script readable by using a perl helper.