| Message ID | 173197064609.904310.7896567442225446738.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [01/12] generic/757: fix various bugs in this test | expand |
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 03:04:31PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> > > Zorro reports that this test fails if the test runner set an -L (label) > option in MKFS_OPTIONS. Fix the test to work around this with a bunch I didn't hit the xfs/157 failure by setting "-L label" in MKFS_OPTIONS, I set MKFS_OPTIONS="-m rmapbt=1" in local.config, then "-m rmapbt=1" is conflict with rtdev, that cause the "-L oldlabel" be dropped by _scratch_mkfs_sized. I don't mind having this "xfs/157 enhancement" patch. But as we've talked, I don't think any testers would like to write MKFS_OPTIONS="-L label" in local.config. So this patch might not be necessary. What do you think? Thanks, Zorro > of horrid sed filtering magic. It's probably not *critical* to make > this test test work with random labels, but it'd be nice not to lose > them. > > Cc: <fstests@vger.kernel.org> # v2024.10.14 > Fixes: 2f7e1b8a6f09b6 ("xfs/157,xfs/547,xfs/548: switch to using _scratch_mkfs_sized") > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> > --- > tests/xfs/157 | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/157 b/tests/xfs/157 > index e102a5a10abe4b..0c21786e389695 100755 > --- a/tests/xfs/157 > +++ b/tests/xfs/157 > @@ -65,9 +65,34 @@ scenario() { > SCRATCH_RTDEV=$orig_rtdev > } > > +extract_mkfs_label() { > + set -- $MKFS_OPTIONS > + local in_l > + > + for arg in "$@"; do > + if [ "$in_l" = "1" ]; then > + echo "$arg" > + return 0 > + elif [ "$arg" = "-L" ]; then > + in_l=1 > + fi > + done > + return 1 > +} > + > check_label() { > - _scratch_mkfs_sized "$fs_size" "" -L oldlabel >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > - _scratch_xfs_db -c label > + local existing_label > + local filter > + > + # Handle -L somelabel being set in MKFS_OPTIONS > + if existing_label="$(extract_mkfs_label)"; then > + filter=(sed -e "s|$existing_label|oldlabel|g") > + _scratch_mkfs_sized $fs_size >> $seqres.full > + else > + filter=(cat) > + _scratch_mkfs_sized "$fs_size" "" -L oldlabel >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > + fi > + _scratch_xfs_db -c label | "${filter[@]}" > _scratch_xfs_admin -L newlabel "$@" >> $seqres.full > _scratch_xfs_db -c label > _scratch_xfs_repair -n &>> $seqres.full || echo "Check failed?" >
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 06:17:12PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 03:04:31PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> > > > > Zorro reports that this test fails if the test runner set an -L (label) > > option in MKFS_OPTIONS. Fix the test to work around this with a bunch > > I didn't hit the xfs/157 failure by setting "-L label" in MKFS_OPTIONS, > I set MKFS_OPTIONS="-m rmapbt=1" in local.config, then "-m rmapbt=1" is > conflict with rtdev, that cause the "-L oldlabel" be dropped by > _scratch_mkfs_sized. > > I don't mind having this "xfs/157 enhancement" patch. But as we've talked, > I don't think any testers would like to write MKFS_OPTIONS="-L label" in > local.config. So this patch might not be necessary. What do you think? Yeah, I guess I will drop it then. --D > Thanks, > Zorro > > > of horrid sed filtering magic. It's probably not *critical* to make > > this test test work with random labels, but it'd be nice not to lose > > them. > > > > Cc: <fstests@vger.kernel.org> # v2024.10.14 > > Fixes: 2f7e1b8a6f09b6 ("xfs/157,xfs/547,xfs/548: switch to using _scratch_mkfs_sized") > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> > > --- > > tests/xfs/157 | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/157 b/tests/xfs/157 > > index e102a5a10abe4b..0c21786e389695 100755 > > --- a/tests/xfs/157 > > +++ b/tests/xfs/157 > > @@ -65,9 +65,34 @@ scenario() { > > SCRATCH_RTDEV=$orig_rtdev > > } > > > > +extract_mkfs_label() { > > + set -- $MKFS_OPTIONS > > + local in_l > > + > > + for arg in "$@"; do > > + if [ "$in_l" = "1" ]; then > > + echo "$arg" > > + return 0 > > + elif [ "$arg" = "-L" ]; then > > + in_l=1 > > + fi > > + done > > + return 1 > > +} > > + > > check_label() { > > - _scratch_mkfs_sized "$fs_size" "" -L oldlabel >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > - _scratch_xfs_db -c label > > + local existing_label > > + local filter > > + > > + # Handle -L somelabel being set in MKFS_OPTIONS > > + if existing_label="$(extract_mkfs_label)"; then > > + filter=(sed -e "s|$existing_label|oldlabel|g") > > + _scratch_mkfs_sized $fs_size >> $seqres.full > > + else > > + filter=(cat) > > + _scratch_mkfs_sized "$fs_size" "" -L oldlabel >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > + fi > > + _scratch_xfs_db -c label | "${filter[@]}" > > _scratch_xfs_admin -L newlabel "$@" >> $seqres.full > > _scratch_xfs_db -c label > > _scratch_xfs_repair -n &>> $seqres.full || echo "Check failed?" > > > >
diff --git a/tests/xfs/157 b/tests/xfs/157 index e102a5a10abe4b..0c21786e389695 100755 --- a/tests/xfs/157 +++ b/tests/xfs/157 @@ -65,9 +65,34 @@ scenario() { SCRATCH_RTDEV=$orig_rtdev } +extract_mkfs_label() { + set -- $MKFS_OPTIONS + local in_l + + for arg in "$@"; do + if [ "$in_l" = "1" ]; then + echo "$arg" + return 0 + elif [ "$arg" = "-L" ]; then + in_l=1 + fi + done + return 1 +} + check_label() { - _scratch_mkfs_sized "$fs_size" "" -L oldlabel >> $seqres.full 2>&1 - _scratch_xfs_db -c label + local existing_label + local filter + + # Handle -L somelabel being set in MKFS_OPTIONS + if existing_label="$(extract_mkfs_label)"; then + filter=(sed -e "s|$existing_label|oldlabel|g") + _scratch_mkfs_sized $fs_size >> $seqres.full + else + filter=(cat) + _scratch_mkfs_sized "$fs_size" "" -L oldlabel >> $seqres.full 2>&1 + fi + _scratch_xfs_db -c label | "${filter[@]}" _scratch_xfs_admin -L newlabel "$@" >> $seqres.full _scratch_xfs_db -c label _scratch_xfs_repair -n &>> $seqres.full || echo "Check failed?"