btrfs/010: don't run without /sys/fs/btrfs
PATCH 1/7 btrfs/010: don't run without /sys/fs/btrfs
From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
Older kernels don't have /sys/fs/btrfs. btrfs/010 will happily run until it goes to check its work against sysfs and finds those files don't exist. This patch introduces a require check to ensure that the sysfs files are present before running.
--- common/btrfs | 8 ++++++++ tests/btrfs/010 | 1 + 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
common/btrfs +8 -0
@@ -89,6 +89,14 @@ _require_btrfs_fs_feature() _notrun "Feature $feat not supported by the available btrfs version" } +_require_btrfs_fs_sysfs() +{ + modprobe btrfs > /dev/null 2>&1 + [ -e /sys/fs/btrfs/features ] || \ + _notrun "Sysfs not supported by the available btrfs version" + +} + _check_btrfs_filesystem() { device=$1
tests/btrfs/010 +1 -0
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ rm -f $seqres.full _supported_fs btrfs _supported_os Linux _require_test +_require_btrfs_fs_sysfs # Create 32k extents. All of these extents will be accounted as outstanding and # reserved.
Signature · 1 line
2.16.4
PATCH 2/7 filter: fix assumed whitespace in _filefrag_filter regex
From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
The regex assumes there will be whitespace after the .. in the ranges and, with larger offsets, there may not be any.
--- common/filter | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
common/filter +1 -1
@@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ _filter_filefrag() next } ($ext, $logical, $physical, $length) = - (/^\s*(\d+):\s+(\d+)..\s+\d+:\s+(\d+)..\s+\d+:\s+(\d+):/) + (/^\s*(\d+):\s+(\d+)\.\.\s*\d+:\s+(\d+)\.\.\s*\d+:\s+(\d+):/) or next; ($flags) = /.*:\s*(\S*)$/; print $physical * $blocksize, "#",
Signature · 1 line
2.16.4
Re: [PATCH 2/7] filter: fix assumed whitespace in _filefrag_filter regex
Quoted 4 lines · On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:33:11AM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
The regex assumes there will be whitespace after the .. in the ranges and, with larger offsets, there may not be any.
Does more than this, right?
Quoted 10 lines
Signed-off-by Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>--- common/filter | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)common/filter +0
-0
common/filter _filter_filefrag() · line 535
Quoted 5 lines
common/filter +1
-1@@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ _filter_filefrag() next } ($ext, $logical, $physical, $length) = - (/^\s*(\d+):\s+(\d+)..\s+\d+:\s+(\d+)..\s+\d+:\s+(\d+):/) + (/^\s*(\d+):\s+(\d+)\.\.\s*\d+:\s+(\d+)\.\.\s*\d+:\s+(\d+):/)
This is escaping "..", too, isn't it?
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 2 lines
Dave Chinner [email protected]
Re: [PATCH 2/7] filter: fix assumed whitespace in _filefrag_filter regex
Quoted 7 lines · Dave Chinner
Quoted 4 lines · On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:33:11AM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
The regex assumes there will be whitespace after the .. in the ranges and, with larger offsets, there may not be any.
Does more than this, right?
I suppose. It converts the interpreted .. into a literal .., which I believe was the original intent.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Signed-off-by Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>--- common/filter | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Quoted 12 lines
common/filter _filter_filefrag() · line 535
Quoted 10 lines
common/filter +1
-1@@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ _filter_filefrag() next } ($ext, $logical, $physical, $length) = - (/^\s*(\d+):\s+(\d+)..\s+\d+:\s+(\d+)..\s+\d+:\s+(\d+):/) + (/^\s*(\d+):\s+(\d+)\.\.\s*\d+:\s+(\d+)\.\.\s*\d+:\s+(\d+):/)This is escaping "..", too, isn't it?
Yes, but what else could the .. in the original regex have been referring to? I don't recall seeing any other filefrag format that would match otherwise.
I don't have a problem documenting it further, though.
-Jeff
Signature · 2 lines
Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs
Re: [PATCH 2/7] filter: fix assumed whitespace in _filefrag_filter regex
Quoted 30 lines · Jeff Mahoney
Quoted 7 lines · Dave Chinner
Quoted 4 lines · On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:33:11AM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
The regex assumes there will be whitespace after the .. in the ranges and, with larger offsets, there may not be any.
Does more than this, right?
I suppose. It converts the interpreted .. into a literal .., which I believe was the original intent.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Signed-off-by Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>--- common/filter | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)Quoted 12 lines
common/filter _filter_filefrag() · line 535
Quoted 10 lines
common/filter +1
-1@@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ _filter_filefrag() next } ($ext, $logical, $physical, $length) = - (/^\s*(\d+):\s+(\d+)..\s+\d+:\s+(\d+)..\s+\d+:\s+(\d+):/) + (/^\s*(\d+):\s+(\d+)\.\.\s*\d+:\s+(\d+)\.\.\s*\d+:\s+(\d+):/)This is escaping "..", too, isn't it?
Quoted 3 lines
Yes, but what else could the .. in the original regex have been referring to? I don't recall seeing any other filefrag format that would match otherwise.
Neither do I. My point was it was a change that was not documented in the commit message and so there might be something I was missing.
Quoted 1 line
I don't have a problem documenting it further, though.
That'd be great, thanks!
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 2 lines
Dave Chinner [email protected]
PATCH 3/7 filter: add support for old filefrag -v
In reply to [email protected]From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
e2fsprogs versions prior to v1.42.7 had a different format for filefrag -v that is incompatible with the regex in _filefrag_filter.
This patch adds support for the older format to test on older releases
--- common/filter | 24 +++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
common/filter +19 -5
@@ -528,13 +528,27 @@ _filter_filefrag() { perl -ne ' if (/blocks? of (\d+) bytes/) { + $oldfmt = 0; $blocksize = $1; - next + next; + } elsif (/\d+ blocks, blocksize (\d+)/) { + $oldfmt = 1; + $blocksize = $1; + next; + } + if ($oldfmt) { + chomp; + ($ext, $logical, $physical, $ignore, $length1, $length2, $flags) = + (/^\s*(\d+)\s+(\d+)\s+(\d+)\s+((\d+)|\d+\s+(\d+))\s+([a-z0-9,]*)$/) + or next; + $length = "$length1$length2"; + } else { + ($ext, $logical, $physical, $length) = + (/^\s*(\d+):\s+(\d+)\.\.\s*\d+:\s+(\d+)\.\.\s*\d+:\s+(\d+):/) + or next; + ($flags) = /.*:\s*(\S*)$/; } - ($ext, $logical, $physical, $length) = - (/^\s*(\d+):\s+(\d+)\.\.\s*\d+:\s+(\d+)\.\.\s*\d+:\s+(\d+):/) - or next; - ($flags) = /.*:\s*(\S*)$/; + print $physical * $blocksize, "#", $length * $blocksize, "#", $logical * $blocksize, "#",
Signature · 1 line
2.16.4
Re: [PATCH 3/7] filter: add support for old filefrag -v
Quoted 6 lines · On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:33:12AM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
e2fsprogs versions prior to v1.42.7 had a different format for filefrag -v that is incompatible with the regex in
_filefrag_filter.This patch adds support for the older format to test on older releases
Can you document what the two formats are in a comment just so it is somewhat easier to check the regexes are, indeed, doing the right thing?
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 2 lines
Dave Chinner [email protected]
Re: [PATCH 3/7] filter: add support for old filefrag -v
Quoted 11 lines · Dave Chinner
Quoted 6 lines · On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:33:12AM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
e2fsprogs versions prior to v1.42.7 had a different format for filefrag -v that is incompatible with the regex in
_filefrag_filter.This patch adds support for the older format to test on older releases
Can you document what the two formats are in a comment just so it is somewhat easier to check the regexes are, indeed, doing the right thing?
Sure. That's easy enough.
-Jeff
Signature · 2 lines
Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs
PATCH 4/7 btrfs: require feature raid56 for raid56 tests
In reply to [email protected]From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
btrfs/125, btrfs/148, btrfs/157, and btrfs/158 test for raid56 behavior. We shouldn't run if the kernel doesn't have support for them.
--- tests/btrfs/125 | 1 + tests/btrfs/148 | 1 + tests/btrfs/157 | 1 + tests/btrfs/158 | 1 + 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
tests/btrfs/125 +1 -0
@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ _supported_os Linux _require_scratch_dev_pool 3 _test_unmount _require_loadable_fs_module "btrfs" +_require_btrfs_fs_feature raid56 _scratch_dev_pool_get 3
tests/btrfs/148 +1 -0
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ _supported_os Linux _require_scratch _require_scratch_dev_pool 4 _require_odirect +_require_btrfs_fs_feature raid56 _scratch_dev_pool_get 4
tests/btrfs/157 +1 -0
@@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ _supported_fs btrfs _supported_os Linux _require_scratch_dev_pool 4 _require_btrfs_command inspect-internal dump-tree +_require_btrfs_fs_feature raid56 get_physical_stripe0() {
tests/btrfs/158 +1 -0
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ _supported_fs btrfs _supported_os Linux _require_scratch_dev_pool 4 _require_btrfs_command inspect-internal dump-tree +_require_btrfs_fs_feature raid56 get_physical_stripe0() {
Signature · 1 line
2.16.4
Re: [PATCH 4/7] btrfs: require feature raid56 for raid56 tests
Quoted 7 lines · On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:33 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
btrfs/125, btrfs/148, btrfs/157, and btrfs/158 test for raid56 behavior. We shouldn't run if the kernel doesn't have support for them.
Signed-off-by Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
Looks good. Since it's a btrfs specific change/fix, it would have been a good idea to cc linux-btrfs.
Quoted 58 lines
--- tests/btrfs/125 | 1 + tests/btrfs/148 | 1 + tests/btrfs/157 | 1 + tests/btrfs/158 | 1 + 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+)tests/btrfs/125 +1
-0@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ _supported_os Linux _require_scratch_dev_pool 3 _test_unmount _require_loadable_fs_module "btrfs" +_require_btrfs_fs_feature raid56 _scratch_dev_pool_get 3tests/btrfs/148 +1
-0@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ _supported_os Linux _require_scratch _require_scratch_dev_pool 4 _require_odirect +_require_btrfs_fs_feature raid56 _scratch_dev_pool_get 4tests/btrfs/157 +1
-0@@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ _supported_fs btrfs _supported_os Linux _require_scratch_dev_pool 4 _require_btrfs_command inspect-internal dump-tree +_require_btrfs_fs_feature raid56 get_physical_stripe0() {tests/btrfs/158 +1
-1@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ _supported_fs btrfs _supported_os Linux _require_scratch_dev_pool 4 _require_btrfs_command inspect-internal dump-tree +_require_btrfs_fs_feature raid56 get_physical_stripe0() { --2.16.4
Signature · 3 lines
Filipe David Manana, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't — you're right.”
PATCH 5/7 btrfs/023: skip trying to test raid56 without kernel support
In reply to [email protected]From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
Older kernels don't support raid56. This test is still valid for other profiles, so skip raid56 if the kernel doesn't support it.
--- tests/btrfs/023 | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
tests/btrfs/023 +6 -4
@@ -63,11 +63,13 @@ check_group_profile "RAID1" create_group_profile "raid10" check_group_profile "RAID10" -create_group_profile "raid5" -check_group_profile "RAID5" +if [ -e "/sys/fs/btrfs/features/raid56" ]; then + create_group_profile "raid5" + check_group_profile "RAID5" -create_group_profile "raid6" -check_group_profile "RAID6" + create_group_profile "raid6" + check_group_profile "RAID6" +fi # success, all done echo "Silence is golden"
Signature · 1 line
2.16.4
Re: [PATCH 5/7] btrfs/023: skip trying to test raid56 without kernel support
Quoted 7 lines · On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:33 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
Older kernels don't support raid56. This test is still valid for other profiles, so skip raid56 if the kernel doesn't support it.
Signed-off-by Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
Looks good. Since it's a btrfs specific change/fix, it would have been a good idea to cc linux-btrfs.
Quoted 29 lines
--- tests/btrfs/023 | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)tests/btrfs/023 +6
-5@@ -63,11 +63,13 @@ check_group_profile "RAID1" create_group_profile "raid10" check_group_profile "RAID10" -create_group_profile "raid5" -check_group_profile "RAID5" +if [ -e "/sys/fs/btrfs/features/raid56" ]; then + create_group_profile "raid5" + check_group_profile "RAID5" -create_group_profile "raid6" -check_group_profile "RAID6" + create_group_profile "raid6" + check_group_profile "RAID6" +fi # success, all done echo "Silence is golden" --2.16.4
Signature · 3 lines
Filipe David Manana, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't — you're right.”
PATCH 6/7 btrfs/131: require support for free-space-tree
In reply to [email protected]From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
btrfs/131 tests the free space tree, which older kernels won't have. We shouldn't run there.
--- tests/btrfs/131 | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
tests/btrfs/131 +1 -0
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ _supported_fs btrfs _supported_os Linux _require_scratch _require_btrfs_command inspect-internal dump-super +_require_btrfs_fs_feature free_space_tree mkfs_v1() {
Signature · 1 line
2.16.4
Re: [PATCH 6/7] btrfs/131: require support for free-space-tree
Quoted 7 lines · On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:33 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
btrfs/131 tests the free space tree, which older kernels won't have. We shouldn't run there.
Signed-off-by Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
Looks good. Since it's a btrfs specific change/fix, it would have been a good idea to cc linux-btrfs.
Quoted 19 lines
--- tests/btrfs/131 | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)tests/btrfs/131 +1
-1@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ _supported_fs btrfs _supported_os Linux _require_scratch _require_btrfs_command inspect-internal dump-super +_require_btrfs_fs_feature free_space_tree mkfs_v1() { --2.16.4
Signature · 3 lines
Filipe David Manana, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't — you're right.”
PATCH 7/7 check: move test exclusion handling to _prepare_test_list
In reply to [email protected]From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
In order to simplify combining excluded tests specified on the command line vs specified via config files, it makes sense to push the handling into _prepare_test_list. This means we start with a fresh $tmp.xlist and rebuild it each time _prepare_test_list is called.
--- check | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
check +24 -17
@@ -230,7 +230,28 @@ _prepare_test_list() done fi - # Specified groups to exclude + :> $tmp.xlist + + # Per-fstype/generic/shared file of tests to exclude (-X) + for xfile in $XGROUP_FILES; do + for d in $SRC_GROUPS $FSTYP; do + [ -f $SRC_DIR/$d/$xfile ] || continue + for f in `sed "s/#.*$//" $SRC_DIR/$d/$xfile`; do + echo "$d/$f command line" >> $tmp.xlist + done + done + done + + # External file of tests to exclude (-E) + for xfile in $EXCLUDE_FILES; do + if [ -f $xfile ]; then + sed -e "s/#.*$//" \ + -e "s;$; file $xfile;" "$xfile" \ + >> $tmp.xlist + fi + done + + # Specified groups to exclude (-x) for xgroup in $XGROUP_LIST; do list=$(get_group_list $xgroup) if [ -z "$list" ]; then
@@ -273,13 +294,8 @@ while [ $# -gt 0 ]; do XGROUP_LIST="$XGROUP_LIST ${xgroup//,/ }" ;; - -X) subdir_xfile=$2; shift ; - ;; - -E) xfile=$2; shift ; - if [ -f $xfile ]; then - sed "s/#.*$//" "$xfile" >> $tmp.xlist - fi - ;; + -X) XGROUP_FILES="$XGROUP_FILES $2" ; shift ;; + -E) EXCLUDE_FILES="$EXCLUDE_FILES $2" ; shift ;; -s) RUN_SECTION="$RUN_SECTION $2"; shift ;; -S) EXCLUDE_SECTION="$EXCLUDE_SECTION $2"; shift ;; -l) diff="diff" ;;
@@ -320,15 +336,6 @@ if ! . ./common/rc; then exit 1 fi -if [ -n "$subdir_xfile" ]; then - for d in $SRC_GROUPS $FSTYP; do - [ -f $SRC_DIR/$d/$subdir_xfile ] || continue - for f in `sed "s/#.*$//" $SRC_DIR/$d/$subdir_xfile`; do - echo $d/$f >> $tmp.xlist - done - done -fi - # Process tests from command line now. if $have_test_arg; then while [ $# -gt 0 ]; do
Signature · 1 line
2.16.4
Re: [PATCH 7/7] check: move test exclusion handling to _prepare_test_list
Quoted 4 lines · On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:33:16AM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
In order to simplify combining excluded tests specified on the command line vs specified via config files,
You mean defining excludes in configs/<hostname>.config files, right? i.e. in config sections?
But the section code only calls _prepare_test_list if the test dev is recreated by each section, right? So you can't really change the expunge list from the config files without forcing a test dev reformat, right?
Quoted 3 lines
it makes sense to push the handling
into_prepare_test_list. This means we start with a fresh $tmp.xlist and rebuild it each time_prepare_test_listis called.
The patch does more than that, right?
Quoted 10 lines
Signed-off-by Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>--- check | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)check +0
-0
check _prepare_test_list() · line 236
Quoted 8 lines
check +4
-1@@ -230,7 +230,28 @@ _prepare_test_list() done fi - # Specified groups to exclude + :> $tmp.xlist + + # Per-fstype/generic/shared file of tests to exclude (-X) + for xfile in $XGROUP_FILES; do
That adds support for multiple group exclude files (i.e. multiple -X options), right?
check _prepare_test_list() · line 249
Quoted 13 lines
check +13
-0+ for d in $SRC_GROUPS $FSTYP; do + [ -f $SRC_DIR/$d/$xfile ] || continue + for f in `sed "s/#.*$//" $SRC_DIR/$d/$xfile`; do + echo "$d/$f command line" >> $tmp.xlist + done + done + done + + # External file of tests to exclude (-E) + for xfile in $EXCLUDE_FILES; do + if [ -f $xfile ]; then + sed -e "s/#.*$//" \ + -e "s;$; file $xfile;" "$xfile" \
And I have no idea what problem this second expression is solving - it wasn't in the original code that got copied here.
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 2 lines
Dave Chinner [email protected]
Re: [PATCH 7/7] check: move test exclusion handling to _prepare_test_list
Quoted 8 lines · Dave Chinner
Quoted 4 lines · On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:33:16AM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
In order to simplify combining excluded tests specified on the command line vs specified via config files,
You mean defining excludes in configs/<hostname>.config files, right? i.e. in config sections?
Yes.
Quoted 4 lines
But the section code only calls
_prepare_test_listif the test dev is recreated by each section, right? So you can't really change the expunge list from the config files without forcing a test dev reformat, right?
Right. In my testing I didn't hit this situation, but it's there. I can fix that.
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 3 lines
it makes sense to push the handling
into_prepare_test_list. This means we start with a fresh $tmp.xlist and rebuild it each time_prepare_test_listis called.The patch does more than that, right?
Quoted 13 lines
Signed-off-by Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>--- check | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)check +0
-0@@ -230,7 +230,28 @@ _prepare_test_list() done fi
Quoted 8 lines
check _prepare_test_list() · line 236
Quoted 5 lines
check +4
-1- # Specified groups to exclude + :> $tmp.xlist + + # Per-fstype/generic/shared file of tests to exclude (-X) + for xfile in $XGROUP_FILES; doThat adds support for multiple group exclude files (i.e. multiple -X options), right?
Yes. I'll document that in the commit message.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
check +8
-0+ for d in $SRC_GROUPS $FSTYP; do + [ -f $SRC_DIR/$d/$xfile ] || continue + for f in `sed "s/#.*$//" $SRC_DIR/$d/$xfile`; do + echo "$d/$f command line" >> $tmp.xlist + done + done + done +
Quoted 8 lines
check _prepare_test_list() · line 249
Quoted 5 lines
check +5
-0+ # External file of tests to exclude (-E) + for xfile in $EXCLUDE_FILES; do + if [ -f $xfile ]; then + sed -e "s/#.*$//" \ + -e "s;$; file $xfile;" "$xfile" \And I have no idea what problem this second expression is solving - it wasn't in the original code that got copied here.
This series is part of a larger set I've been using for a while. I reordered them and pulled out the least controversial. This was originally after a patch that adds reporting for why a test was expunged to the check output. We can ignore this part for now.
Thanks for the review,
-Jeff
Signature · 2 lines
Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs
Quoted 2 lines · On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:33 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
Looks good. Since it's a btrfs specific change/fix, it would have been a good idea to cc linux-btrfs.
Quoted 46 lines
Older kernels don't have
/sys/fs/btrfs. btrfs/010 will happily run until it goes to check its work against sysfs and finds those files don't exist. This patch introduces a require check to ensure that the sysfs files are present before running.Signed-off-by Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>--- common/btrfs | 8 ++++++++ tests/btrfs/010 | 1 + 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)common/btrfs +8
-0@@ -89,6 +89,14 @@ _require_btrfs_fs_feature() _notrun "Feature $feat not supported by the available btrfs version" } +_require_btrfs_fs_sysfs() +{ + modprobe btrfs > /dev/null 2>&1 + [ -e /sys/fs/btrfs/features ] || \ + _notrun "Sysfs not supported by the available btrfs version" + +} + _check_btrfs_filesystem() { device=$1tests/btrfs/010 +1
-1@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ rm -f $seqres.full _supported_fs btrfs _supported_os Linux _require_test +_require_btrfs_fs_sysfs # Create 32k extents. All of these extents will be accounted as outstanding and # reserved. --2.16.4
Signature · 3 lines
Filipe David Manana, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't — you're right.”