| Message ID | 20210521045825.1720305-1-naohiro.aota@wdc.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | fstests: add checks for testing zoned btrfs | expand |
On 21/05/2021 06:58, Naohiro Aota wrote: > Several tests are failing on zoned btrfs, but actually they are > invalid. There are two reasons of the failures. One is creating too > small filesystem. Since zoned btrfs needs at lease 5 zones (= 1.25 GB > if zone size = 256MB) to create a filesystem, tests creating e.g., 1 > GB filesystem will fail. > > The other reason is lacking of zone support of some dm targets and > loop device. So, they need to skip the test if the testing device is > zoned. > > Patches 1 to 3 handle the too small file system failure. > > And, patches 4 and 5 add checks for tests requiring non-zoned devices. > > Naohiro Aota (5): > common/rc: introduce minimal fs size check > btrfs/057: use _scratch_mkfs_sized to set filesystem size > btrfs: add minimal file system size check > common: add zoned block device checks > shared/032: add check for zoned block device > > README | 4 ++++ > common/dmerror | 3 +++ > common/dmhugedisk | 3 +++ > common/rc | 15 +++++++++++++++ > tests/btrfs/057 | 2 +- > tests/btrfs/141 | 1 + > tests/btrfs/142 | 1 + > tests/btrfs/143 | 1 + > tests/btrfs/150 | 1 + > tests/btrfs/151 | 1 + > tests/btrfs/156 | 1 + > tests/btrfs/157 | 1 + > tests/btrfs/158 | 1 + > tests/btrfs/175 | 1 + > tests/shared/032 | 2 ++ > 15 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > For the whole series: Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com> Tested-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>
On 21/05/2021 12:17, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On 21/05/2021 06:58, Naohiro Aota wrote: >> Several tests are failing on zoned btrfs, but actually they are >> invalid. There are two reasons of the failures. One is creating too >> small filesystem. Since zoned btrfs needs at lease 5 zones (= 1.25 GB >> if zone size = 256MB) to create a filesystem, tests creating e.g., 1 >> GB filesystem will fail. >> >> The other reason is lacking of zone support of some dm targets and >> loop device. So, they need to skip the test if the testing device is >> zoned. >> >> Patches 1 to 3 handle the too small file system failure. >> >> And, patches 4 and 5 add checks for tests requiring non-zoned devices. >> >> Naohiro Aota (5): >> common/rc: introduce minimal fs size check >> btrfs/057: use _scratch_mkfs_sized to set filesystem size >> btrfs: add minimal file system size check >> common: add zoned block device checks >> shared/032: add check for zoned block device >> >> README | 4 ++++ >> common/dmerror | 3 +++ >> common/dmhugedisk | 3 +++ >> common/rc | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> tests/btrfs/057 | 2 +- >> tests/btrfs/141 | 1 + >> tests/btrfs/142 | 1 + >> tests/btrfs/143 | 1 + >> tests/btrfs/150 | 1 + >> tests/btrfs/151 | 1 + >> tests/btrfs/156 | 1 + >> tests/btrfs/157 | 1 + >> tests/btrfs/158 | 1 + >> tests/btrfs/175 | 1 + >> tests/shared/032 | 2 ++ >> 15 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > > For the whole series: > Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com> > Tested-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com> > Spoke too early, I've only tested with a zoned device. I get the following splat with non zoned btrfs: btrfs/146 - output mismatch (see /home/johannes/src/xfstests-dev/results//btrfs/146.out.bad) --- tests/btrfs/146.out 2020-01-07 15:49:53.000000000 +0000 +++ /home/johannes/src/xfstests-dev/results//btrfs/146.out.bad 2021-05-21 09:56:43.963914581 +0000 @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@ QA output created by 146 Format and mount +./common/dmerror: line 20: _require_non_zoned_device: command not found +./common/dmerror: line 20: _require_non_zoned_device: command not found Test passed! ... (Run 'diff -u /home/johannes/src/xfstests-dev/tests/btrfs/146.out /home/johannes/src/xfstests-dev/results//btrfs/146.out.bad' to see the entire diff)