On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 11:56:13PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 09:22:59PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:

quoted

Add basic test to make sure the functionality works as expected.

Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <redacted>
---
 tests/xfs/990     | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/xfs/990.out | 12 ++++++++++
 tests/xfs/group   |  1 +
 3 files changed, 72 insertions(+)
 create mode 100755 tests/xfs/990
 create mode 100644 tests/xfs/990.out

diff --git a/tests/xfs/990 b/tests/xfs/990
new file mode 100755
index 00000000..551c4784
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/xfs/990

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+#! /bin/bash
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+# Copyright (c) 2021 Red Hat, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
+#
+# FS QA Test 990
+#
+# XFS shrinkfs basic functionality test
+#
+# This test attempts to shrink with a small size (512K), half AG size and
+# an out-of-bound size (agsize + 1) to observe if it works as expected.
+#
+seq=`basename $0`
+seqres=$RESULT_DIR/$seq
+echo "QA output created by $seq"
+
+here=`pwd`
+tmp=/tmp/$$
+status=1    # failure is the default!
+trap "rm -f $tmp.*; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15
+
+# get standard environment, filters and checks
+. ./common/rc
+. ./common/filter
+
+# real QA test starts here
+_supported_fs xfs

_require_scratch

Will fix.

quoted

+_require_xfs_shrink
+
+rm -f $seqres.full
+echo "Format and mount"
+size="$((512 * 1024 * 1024))"

Is the fixed size necessary? Is that better to let testers run this test with
their different device/XFS geometry.

I'm fine with either way since it's a simple functionality test, yet for most
common cases, stratch devices are somewhat large. I tend to use a relative
controllable small value.

Actually, this case was from xfs/127 with some modification.

quoted

+_scratch_mkfs -dsize=$size -dagcount=3 2>&1 | \
+	tee -a $seqres.full | _filter_mkfs 2>$tmp.mkfs
+. $tmp.mkfs
+_scratch_mount >> $seqres.full 2>&1
+
+echo "Shrink fs (small size)"
+$XFS_GROWFS_PROG -D $((dblocks-512*1024/dbsize)) $SCRATCH_MNT \
+	>> $seqres.full 2>&1 || echo failure
+_scratch_cycle_mount

I don't understand the XFS Shrink new feature that much, is the "cycle_mount"
necessary? If it's not, can we get more chances to find bugs without
"cycle_mount", or with a fsck?

maybe it's useful to test unmount here. Yeah, I think it's better to try fsck
here. Good idea.

Another question is, should we verify the new size after shrink?

Yeah, will add xfs_info.

quoted

+
+echo "Shrink fs (half AG)"
+$XFS_GROWFS_PROG -D $((dblocks-agsize/2)) $SCRATCH_MNT \
+	>> $seqres.full 2>&1 || echo failure
+_scratch_cycle_mount
+
+echo "Shrink fs (out-of-bound)"
+$XFS_GROWFS_PROG -D $((dblocks-agsize-1)) $SCRATCH_MNT \
+	>> $seqres.full 2>&1 && echo failure
+_scratch_cycle_mount
+
+$XFS_INFO_PROG $SCRATCH_MNT >> $seqres.full
+
+_scratch_unmount

   ^^^
   It's not necessary.

ok. It seems that ./check will fsck scratch device as well.
Will update it.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang