| Message ID | 20160224124208.GD23746@twin.jikos.cz (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:42:08PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:25:28PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > This patch fixes test btrfs/011 which intended to use -r option > > but was never used since its associated args 'replace_options' > > didn't make it to the cli. > > After this patch the tests fails due to extra output. I've tested > several kernels (4.5 rcs), HDD and SSD so it's not caused by my testing > setup. I'll use this as an opportunity to point out that nobody is reviewing most btrfs test changes. I'll commit the changes if no-one says anything about them, they look sane to me and don't cause me any problems, but that doesn't mean they will work. Mostly I'm concerned about changes to the common code and code patterns, not what the test does or whether it is even a valid test. IOWs, it is up to the developers who use xfstests to make sure the tests relevant to their areas of expertise work correctly and are valid/viable tests, not me. To avoid this sort of issue in future, please review changes promptly. Cheers, Dave.
Sorry for the late reply. More below.. On 02/24/2016 08:42 PM, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:25:28PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: >> This patch fixes test btrfs/011 which intended to use -r option >> but was never used since its associated args 'replace_options' >> didn't make it to the cli. > > After this patch the tests fails due to extra output. I've tested > several kernels (4.5 rcs), HDD and SSD so it's not caused by my testing > setup. > > --- tests/btrfs/011.out 2013-08-29 11:58:37.000000000 +0200 > +++ /root/xfstests/results//btrfs/011.out.bad 2016-02-24 12:44:45.562234906 +0100 > @@ -1,3 +1,68 @@ > QA output created by 011 > *** test btrfs replace > +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 > +Couldn't read chunk root > +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 > +Couldn't read chunk root :: > +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 > +Couldn't read chunk root > *** done Those are 'btrfs fi show' errors on defunct volumes created by previous test case within btrfs/011 or outside. An example of reproducing the above error is as below.. --------------------------------------- (a clean start) # wipefs -a /dev/sd[c-i] :: (mkfs with 4 devices) # mkfs.btrfs -f -draid10 -mraid10 /dev/sdc /dev/sdd /dev/sde /dev/sdf :: # btrfs fi show Label: none uuid: 55e2335a-6439-43a9-8d42-cb14dd3bb4b5 Total devices 4 FS bytes used 112.00KiB devid 1 size 4.00GiB used 827.12MiB path /dev/sdc devid 2 size 4.00GiB used 827.12MiB path /dev/sdd devid 3 size 4.00GiB used 827.12MiB path /dev/sde devid 4 size 4.00GiB used 827.12MiB path /dev/sdf (mkfs with only 3 devices) # mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdc /dev/sdd /dev/sde :: # btrfs fi show warning, device 3 is missing warning, device 2 is missing warning, device 1 is missing warning devid 1 not found already warning devid 2 not found already warning devid 3 not found already bytenr mismatch, want=37847040, have=0 <---- Couldn't setup extent tree bytenr mismatch, want=37863424, have=0 Couldn't setup device tree Label: none uuid: d57df874-2603-493c-acfc-d200297c9082 Total devices 3 FS bytes used 112.00KiB devid 1 size 4.00GiB used 1.40GiB path /dev/sdc devid 2 size 4.00GiB used 417.56MiB path /dev/sdd devid 3 size 4.00GiB used 1.41GiB path /dev/sde Label: none uuid: 55e2335a-6439-43a9-8d42-cb14dd3bb4b5 Total devices 4 FS bytes used 112.00KiB devid 4 size 4.00GiB used 827.12MiB path /dev/sdf *** Some devices missing -------------------------------------------- V2 fixes this by starting with a clean set of scratch pool devices before each sub test case. So that 011.full is clean as well. I could reproduce this when I changed the number of scratch pool devices from 5 to 4. And then the above errors in 011.full can be said to be irrelevant because of a device which does not belong to scratch pool devices But, strictly speaking we need to fix 'btrfs fi show' rather. However I am not too sure why/how those warnings/errors are useful. Thanks, Anand -- 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
--- tests/btrfs/011.out 2013-08-29 11:58:37.000000000 +0200 +++ /root/xfstests/results//btrfs/011.out.bad 2016-02-24 12:44:45.562234906 +0100 @@ -1,3 +1,68 @@ QA output created by 011 *** test btrfs replace +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +warning devid 2 not found already +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +warning devid 2 not found already +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +warning devid 2 not found already +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root +bytenr mismatch, want=20987904, have=0 +Couldn't read chunk root *** done