On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:12:13PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Introduce new _require_btrfs_qgroup_report function, which will check
> the accessibility to "btrfs check --qgroup-report", then set a global
> flag to info _check_scratch_fs() to do extra qgroup check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v2:
> Use "${RESULT_DIR}/require_scratch.require_qgroup_report" instead of
> global variant
> Rebased to latest master
> Replace btrfsck with $BTRFS_UTIL_PROG check.
[snip]
> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/042 b/tests/btrfs/042
> index 498ccc9..dc9b762 100755
> --- a/tests/btrfs/042
> +++ b/tests/btrfs/042
> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ _cleanup()
> _supported_fs btrfs
> _supported_os Linux
> _require_scratch
> +_require_btrfs_qgroup_report
>
> rm -f $seqres.full
>
> @@ -84,10 +85,7 @@ for i in `seq 10 -1 1`; do
> total_written=$(($total_written+$filesize))
> done
>
> -#check if total written exceeds limit
> -if [ $total_written -gt $LIMIT_SIZE ];then
> - _fail "total written should be less than $LIMIT_SIZE"
> -fi
> +# qgroup will be checked automatically at _check_scratch_fs() by fstest
This doesn't look like an equivalent replacement, and btrfs/042 fails
for me after this update (wrong qgroup numbers) on 4.9-rc4 kernel. Is
this change intentional?
Thanks,
Eryu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
