On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:13:45AM +0000, Filipe David Manana wrote: > > > > So another thing I would like to see is doing a more comprehensive > > verification that the repair code worked as expected. Currently we > > only check that a readonly fsck, after running fsck --repair, returns > > 0. > > > > For the improvements you've been doing, it's equally important to > > verify that --repair recovered the inodes, links, etc to the > > lost+found directory (or whatever is the directory's name). > > > > So perhaps adding a verify.sh script to the tarball for example? > > Or, forgot before, it might be better to do such verification/test in > xfstests since we can create the fs and use the new btrfs-progs > programs to corrupt leafs/nodes. xfstests has a lot of infrastructure > already and probably run by a lot more people (compared to the fsck > tests of btrfs-progs).
I'm thinking about the best way how to integrate that, but it seems that there will be always some level of code or infrastructure duplication (or other hassle). btrfs-corrupt-block is not installed by default (make install) and it's not a type of utility I'd consider for default installations. The tests would be skipped in absence of the utility, so there will be test environments where "install xfstests, install btrfspprogs" will not add the desired test coverage. Solvable by packaging the extra progs. Adding corrupt-block into xfsprogs is infeasible (IMO too much code from btrfs-progs to be added). I don't know how much infrastructure code we'd have to either write or copy from fstests, but I think it would not be that much. Ideally we could write the tests within btrfs-progs and then submit them to fstests once they're considered reliable. If we keep the same "syntax" of the tests, provide stubs where applicable, the code duplication in test itself would be zero. We'd only have to write the stubs in btrfs-progs and probably extend fstests to provide helpers for preparing/unpacking the images. Also, collecting the crafted binary images may bloat the git repo nicely, even if we use xz. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
