| Message ID | 7be1169e950b807f24e4b2ac33177e44fc13e434.1678189053.git.fdmanana@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | btrfs/284: list a couple btrfs-progs git commits | expand |
On 07/03/2023 19:38, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > > This test may often fail when running with btrfs-progs versions not very > recent. The corresponding git commits in btrfs-progs that fix issues > uncovered by this test are: > > 1) 6f4a51886b37 ("btrfs-progs: receive: fix silent data loss after fall back from encoded write") > Introduced in btrfs-progs v6.0.2; > > 2) e3209f8792f4 ("btrfs-progs: receive: fix a corruption when decompressing zstd extents"") > Introduced in btrfs-progs v6.2. > > So add the corresponding _fixed_by_git_commit calls to the test. > > Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > --- > tests/btrfs/284 | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tests/btrfs/284 b/tests/btrfs/284 > index 0d31e5d9..c6692668 100755 > --- a/tests/btrfs/284 > +++ b/tests/btrfs/284 > @@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ _require_test > _require_scratch_size $(($LOAD_FACTOR * 1 * 1024 * 1024)) > _require_fssum > > +_fixed_by_git_commit btrfs-progs e3209f8792f4 \ > + "btrfs-progs: receive: fix a corruption when decompressing zstd extents" > +_fixed_by_git_commit btrfs-progs 6f4a51886b37 \ > + "btrfs-progs: receive: fix silent data loss after fall back from encoded write" > + > send_files_dir=$TEST_DIR/btrfs-test-$seq > > rm -fr $send_files_dir Along with this, why not check the btrfs-progs version using 'btrfs --version' and call _not_run()? Thanks, Anand
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 04:03:57PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > On 07/03/2023 19:38, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote: > > From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > > > > This test may often fail when running with btrfs-progs versions not very > > recent. The corresponding git commits in btrfs-progs that fix issues > > uncovered by this test are: > > > > 1) 6f4a51886b37 ("btrfs-progs: receive: fix silent data loss after fall back from encoded write") > > Introduced in btrfs-progs v6.0.2; > > > > 2) e3209f8792f4 ("btrfs-progs: receive: fix a corruption when decompressing zstd extents"") > > Introduced in btrfs-progs v6.2. > > > > So add the corresponding _fixed_by_git_commit calls to the test. > > > > Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > > --- > > tests/btrfs/284 | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tests/btrfs/284 b/tests/btrfs/284 > > index 0d31e5d9..c6692668 100755 > > --- a/tests/btrfs/284 > > +++ b/tests/btrfs/284 > > @@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ _require_test > > _require_scratch_size $(($LOAD_FACTOR * 1 * 1024 * 1024)) > > _require_fssum > > +_fixed_by_git_commit btrfs-progs e3209f8792f4 \ > > + "btrfs-progs: receive: fix a corruption when decompressing zstd extents" > > +_fixed_by_git_commit btrfs-progs 6f4a51886b37 \ > > + "btrfs-progs: receive: fix silent data loss after fall back from encoded write" > > + > > send_files_dir=$TEST_DIR/btrfs-test-$seq > > rm -fr $send_files_dir > > > Along with this, why not check the btrfs-progs version using > 'btrfs --version' and call _not_run()? Does this case expose some known bugs, right? Or the failures due to some features missing? If this case uncovers some known issues, then the failure is expected on unfixed version. We should let the failure exposing, not hide it by _notrun. And the package version is not a good way to jundge if a issue is fixed or a feature is merged. Due to many downstream packages might merge some upstream patches independently. Thanks, Zorro > > Thanks, Anand >
On 3/8/23 16:47, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 04:03:57PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: >> On 07/03/2023 19:38, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote: >>> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> >>> >>> This test may often fail when running with btrfs-progs versions not very >>> recent. The corresponding git commits in btrfs-progs that fix issues >>> uncovered by this test are: >>> >>> 1) 6f4a51886b37 ("btrfs-progs: receive: fix silent data loss after fall back from encoded write") >>> Introduced in btrfs-progs v6.0.2; >>> >>> 2) e3209f8792f4 ("btrfs-progs: receive: fix a corruption when decompressing zstd extents"") >>> Introduced in btrfs-progs v6.2. >>> >>> So add the corresponding _fixed_by_git_commit calls to the test. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> >>> --- >>> tests/btrfs/284 | 5 +++++ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/284 b/tests/btrfs/284 >>> index 0d31e5d9..c6692668 100755 >>> --- a/tests/btrfs/284 >>> +++ b/tests/btrfs/284 >>> @@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ _require_test >>> _require_scratch_size $(($LOAD_FACTOR * 1 * 1024 * 1024)) >>> _require_fssum >>> +_fixed_by_git_commit btrfs-progs e3209f8792f4 \ >>> + "btrfs-progs: receive: fix a corruption when decompressing zstd extents" >>> +_fixed_by_git_commit btrfs-progs 6f4a51886b37 \ >>> + "btrfs-progs: receive: fix silent data loss after fall back from encoded write" >>> + >>> send_files_dir=$TEST_DIR/btrfs-test-$seq >>> rm -fr $send_files_dir >> >> >> Along with this, why not check the btrfs-progs version using >> 'btrfs --version' and call _not_run()? > > Does this case expose some known bugs, right? Or the failures due to some > features missing? > It tests for a bug. > If this case uncovers some known issues, then the failure is expected on unfixed > version. We should let the failure exposing, not hide it by _notrun. Makes sense. > And the package version is not a good way to jundge if a issue is fixed or a > feature is merged. Due to many downstream packages might merge some upstream > patches independently. > Yeah, I agree. You can guarantee that if btrfs-progs is plain vanilla. Looks good as it is. Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> Thanks, Anand > Thanks, > Zorro > >> >> Thanks, Anand >> >
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 9:17 AM Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > On 3/8/23 16:47, Zorro Lang wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 04:03:57PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > >> On 07/03/2023 19:38, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote: > >>> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > >>> > >>> This test may often fail when running with btrfs-progs versions not very > >>> recent. The corresponding git commits in btrfs-progs that fix issues > >>> uncovered by this test are: > >>> > >>> 1) 6f4a51886b37 ("btrfs-progs: receive: fix silent data loss after fall back from encoded write") > >>> Introduced in btrfs-progs v6.0.2; > >>> > >>> 2) e3209f8792f4 ("btrfs-progs: receive: fix a corruption when decompressing zstd extents"") > >>> Introduced in btrfs-progs v6.2. > >>> > >>> So add the corresponding _fixed_by_git_commit calls to the test. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > >>> --- > >>> tests/btrfs/284 | 5 +++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/284 b/tests/btrfs/284 > >>> index 0d31e5d9..c6692668 100755 > >>> --- a/tests/btrfs/284 > >>> +++ b/tests/btrfs/284 > >>> @@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ _require_test > >>> _require_scratch_size $(($LOAD_FACTOR * 1 * 1024 * 1024)) > >>> _require_fssum > >>> +_fixed_by_git_commit btrfs-progs e3209f8792f4 \ > >>> + "btrfs-progs: receive: fix a corruption when decompressing zstd extents" > >>> +_fixed_by_git_commit btrfs-progs 6f4a51886b37 \ > >>> + "btrfs-progs: receive: fix silent data loss after fall back from encoded write" > >>> + > >>> send_files_dir=$TEST_DIR/btrfs-test-$seq > >>> rm -fr $send_files_dir > >> > >> > >> Along with this, why not check the btrfs-progs version using > >> 'btrfs --version' and call _not_run()? > > > > Does this case expose some known bugs, right? Or the failures due to some > > features missing? > > > > It tests for a bug. The test is meant to be a generic stress test for send v2 streams. It happens to have uncovered 2 bugs (so far). And if it finds out more bugs in the future, I'll surely list more commits in it. So I don't get where you got the idea to skip running a test based on the btrfs-progs version. We don't do that anywhere in fstests, neither for btrfs-progs nor kernel or anything else. The reason was already pointed out to you: distros, vendors, often backport commits to older versions - working for a company with a distro, I would expect you to be familiar with that :) Thanks. > > > If this case uncovers some known issues, then the failure is expected on unfixed > > version. We should let the failure exposing, not hide it by _notrun. > > Makes sense. > > > And the package version is not a good way to jundge if a issue is fixed or a > > feature is merged. Due to many downstream packages might merge some upstream > > patches independently. > > > > Yeah, I agree. You can guarantee that if btrfs-progs is plain vanilla. > > Looks good as it is. > > Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> > > Thanks, Anand > > > Thanks, > > Zorro > > > >> > >> Thanks, Anand > >> > >
diff --git a/tests/btrfs/284 b/tests/btrfs/284 index 0d31e5d9..c6692668 100755 --- a/tests/btrfs/284 +++ b/tests/btrfs/284 @@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ _require_test _require_scratch_size $(($LOAD_FACTOR * 1 * 1024 * 1024)) _require_fssum +_fixed_by_git_commit btrfs-progs e3209f8792f4 \ + "btrfs-progs: receive: fix a corruption when decompressing zstd extents" +_fixed_by_git_commit btrfs-progs 6f4a51886b37 \ + "btrfs-progs: receive: fix silent data loss after fall back from encoded write" + send_files_dir=$TEST_DIR/btrfs-test-$seq rm -fr $send_files_dir