Question about xfstests xfs/122 and xfs/253
Hi,
I am running xfstests mostly just to exercise a low level driver, and I'm seeing failures on tests xfs/122 and xfs/253.
I'm using xfstests, xfsprogs, xfsdump cloned fresh from the git repos listed
here: http://xfs.org/index.php/Getting_the_latest_source_code
git hashes:
xfstests: 45d1fac1303acfa102384f48111dc3a458b93493
xfsprogs: 03e956b25243bf4aac034275f89a0f3f2712b79a
xfsdump: b1d6979f1fae82acc79d27cf0add4d55da6d83cc
I'm using kernel 3.16-rc1 on RHEL 6.5 on x86_64.
I would expect that specific versions of xfstests, xfsprogs, xfsdump are meant to go with specific kernel versions, though it is not clear to me how to match these up in the general case. I guessed that "latest of everything" would have a reasonable chance of being a matched set.
I'm running it by: "./check -g auto"
with configs/localhost.config:
[root@localhost xfstests]# cat configs/localhost.config TEST_DEV=/dev/sdc
TEST_DIR=/mnt/test
SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sdb
SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratch
I'm not very familiar with these tests, but it looks like xfs/122 is checking that some structure sizes specific to xfs are correct, and I'm struggling to see how a low level driver would break that test without breaking a lot of other stuff, so I'm thinking I can ignore that one (maybe the test is broken?) But I figured I should ask here in case I'm not correctly understanding what it's trying to test.
xfs/253, seems to be testing some kind of filename hashing stuff.
Do these failures seem plausibly attributable to a flaw in a low level driver, or are these failures known issues with xfs or with the tests, or is there something else I might be doing wrong?
(It occurs to me now I should try the tests with a different driver and hardware and see how it behaves.)
[root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/122.out 122.out.bad | diffstat
122.out.bad | 38 +++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) [root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/253.out 253.out.bad | diffstat 253.out.bad | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
[root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/253.out 253.out.bad
253.out.bad renamed from ../tests/xfs/253.out +2 -0
@@ -1,2 +1,4 @@ QA output created by 253 Disciplyne of silence is goed. +mount: Structure needs cleaning +umount: /dev/sdb: not mounted
[root@localhost xfs]#
Also, I noticed a few tests were not run, I presume that is not out of the ordinary.
xfs/189 [not run] noattr2 mount option not supported on /dev/sdb
xfs/190 1s ... 1s
xfs/191 [not run] no mkfs support for NFS v4 ACLs
xfs/194 1s ... 1s
xfs/195 [not run] fsgqa user not defined.
xfs/196 5s ... 5s
xfs/197 [not run] This test is only valid on 32 bit machines
And a few others skipped as well.
Thanks,
-- steve
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 31 lines · On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 08:41:05AM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
I am running xfstests mostly just to exercise a low level driver, and I'm seeing failures on tests xfs/122 and xfs/253.
I'm using xfstests, xfsprogs, xfsdump cloned fresh from the git repos listed
here: http://xfs.org/index.php/Getting_the_latest_source_code
git hashes:
xfstests:45d1fac1303acfa102384f48111dc3a458b93493
xfsprogs:03e956b25243bf4aac034275f89a0f3f2712b79a
xfsdump:b1d6979f1fae82acc79d27cf0add4d55da6d83ccI'm using kernel 3.16-rc1 on RHEL 6.5 on
x86_64.I would expect that specific versions of xfstests, xfsprogs, xfsdump are meant to go with specific kernel versions, though it is not clear to me how to match these up in the general case. I guessed that "latest of everything" would have a reasonable chance of being a matched set.
I'm running it by: "./check -g auto"
with
configs/localhost.config:[root@localhost xfstests]# cat
configs/localhost.configTEST_DEV=/dev/sdc
TEST_DIR=/mnt/test
SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sdb
SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratch
Quoted 7 lines
I'm not very familiar with these tests, but it looks like xfs/122 is checking that some structure sizes specific to xfs are correct, and I'm struggling to see how a low level driver would break that test without breaking a lot of other stuff, so I'm thinking I can ignore that one (maybe the test is broken?) But I figured I should ask here in case I'm not correctly understanding what it's trying to test.
xfs/122 fails for me as well. I guess I never noticed it before because it depends on indent. It looks like the output file (122.out) contains a bunch of hardcoded field offsets and structure sizes, so perhaps it's just out of date. I'm not familiar with the objective of this test.
Quoted 2 lines
xfs/253, seems to be testing some kind of filename hashing stuff.
This one tests metadump and restore, name obfuscation in particular it appears. It passes on a quick test for me with fairly recent code.
Quoted 7 lines
Do these failures seem plausibly attributable to a flaw in a low level driver, or are these failures known issues with xfs or with the tests, or is there something else I might be doing wrong?
(It occurs to me now I should try the tests with a different driver and hardware and see how it behaves.)
Probably a good idea. ;)
Quoted 15 lines
[root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/122.out 122.out.bad | diffstat
122.out.bad | 38 +++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) [root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/253.out 253.out.bad | diffstat 253.out.bad | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)[root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/253.out 253.out.bad
253.out.bad renamed from ../tests/xfs/253.out +2
-0@@ -1,2 +1,4 @@ QA output created by 253 Disciplyne of silence is goed. +mount: Structure needs cleaning +umount: /dev/sdb: not mounted
Quoted 2 lines
[root@localhost xfs]#
I'm guessing the dump or restore failed to properly create the metadump image or restore it correctly. You probably want to try this on something known to be working.
Quoted 10 lines
Also, I noticed a few tests were not run, I presume that is not out of the ordinary.
xfs/189 [not run] noattr2 mount option not supported on
/dev/sdb
xfs/190 1s ... 1s
xfs/191 [not run] no mkfs support for NFS v4 ACLs
xfs/194 1s ... 1s
xfs/195 [not run] fsgqa user not defined.
xfs/196 5s ... 5s
xfs/197 [not run] This test is only valid on 32 bit machines
Quoted 2 lines
And a few others skipped as well.
This is generally normal. Tests will detect dependencies and/or settings and skip running if not applicable as opposed to causing failures for things that are problems with the test environment.
Brian
Quoted 8 lines
Thanks,
-- steve
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 40 lines · Brian Foster
Quoted 31 lines · On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 08:41:05AM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
I am running xfstests mostly just to exercise a low level driver, and I'm seeing failures on tests xfs/122 and xfs/253.
I'm using xfstests, xfsprogs, xfsdump cloned fresh from the git repos listed
here: http://xfs.org/index.php/Getting_the_latest_source_code
git hashes:
xfstests:45d1fac1303acfa102384f48111dc3a458b93493
xfsprogs:03e956b25243bf4aac034275f89a0f3f2712b79a
xfsdump:b1d6979f1fae82acc79d27cf0add4d55da6d83ccI'm using kernel 3.16-rc1 on RHEL 6.5 on
x86_64.I would expect that specific versions of xfstests, xfsprogs, xfsdump are meant to go with specific kernel versions, though it is not clear to me how to match these up in the general case. I guessed that "latest of everything" would have a reasonable chance of being a matched set.
I'm running it by: "./check -g auto"
with
configs/localhost.config:[root@localhost xfstests]# cat
configs/localhost.configTEST_DEV=/dev/sdc
TEST_DIR=/mnt/test
SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sdb
SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratchQuoted 7 lines
I'm not very familiar with these tests, but it looks like xfs/122 is checking that some structure sizes specific to xfs are correct, and I'm struggling to see how a low level driver would break that test without breaking a lot of other stuff, so I'm thinking I can ignore that one (maybe the test is broken?) But I figured I should ask here in case I'm not correctly understanding what it's trying to test.
Quoted 4 lines
xfs/122 fails for me as well. I guess I never noticed it before because it depends on indent. It looks like the output file (122.out) contains a bunch of hardcoded field offsets and structure sizes, so perhaps it's just out of date. I'm not familiar with the objective of this test.
They are the sizes and offsets of on-disk structures. I get a _not_run here because the test program fails to compile, which is probably why I've not noticed that it might be failing. I'll look into it that failure here.
FWIW, posting the diff of the failure will tell us if it's an important failure or not, or whether it's just that we've removed a bunch of typedefs and so the program output is not exactly the same as expected....
Quoted 17 lines
Quoted 2 lines
xfs/253, seems to be testing some kind of filename hashing stuff.
This one tests metadump and restore, name obfuscation in particular it appears. It passes on a quick test for me with fairly recent code.
Quoted 7 lines
Do these failures seem plausibly attributable to a flaw in a low level driver, or are these failures known issues with xfs or with the tests, or is there something else I might be doing wrong?
(It occurs to me now I should try the tests with a different driver and hardware and see how it behaves.)
Probably a good idea. ;)
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 10 lines
[root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/122.out 122.out.bad | diffstat
122.out.bad | 38 +++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) [root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/253.out 253.out.bad | diffstat 253.out.bad | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)[root@localhost xfs]# diff -u ../../tests/xfs/253.out 253.out.bad
253.out.bad line 4
Quoted 4 lines
253.out.bad renamed from ../tests/xfs/253.out +2
-0@@ -1,2 +1,4 @@ QA output created by 253 Disciplyne of silence is goed. +mount: Structure needs cleaning +umount: /dev/sdb: not mounted
What's the dmesg output?
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
xfs/189 [not run] noattr2 mount option not supported on
/dev/sdb
That implies you are testing with MKFS_OPTION="-m crc=1", because only CRC enabled filesystems reject the noattr2 mount option. Is that correct?
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 7 lines
Dave Chinner [email protected] _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list [email protected] http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs