[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <508E8480.5020507@sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:28:32 -0500
From: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@....com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
CC: xfs-oss <xfs@....sgi.com>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: xfstests: test ext4 statfs
On 10/26/2012 01:39 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 10/26/12 1:03 PM, Rich Johnston wrote:
>> On 10/25/2012 12:19 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> Calculating free blocks in ext[234] is surprisingly hard, since
>>> by default we report "bsd" style df which doesn't count filesystem
>>> "overhead" blocks as used.
>>>
>>> With a lot of code dedicated to sorting out what to report as
>>> free, things tend to go wrong surprisingly often.
>>>
>>> Here's a test to actually try to stop the next regression. ;)
>>>
>>> NB: For bsddf, the kernel currently does not count journal blocks
>>> as overhead; it probably should. But the test below looks to have
>>> the result within 1% of perfection, so it still passes even if
>>> the kernel doesn't count the journal against free blocks.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>
>
> Yep - it's an ext4 bug. I sent a patch to fix it.
>
> [PATCH] ext4: fix overhead calculations in ext4_stats, again
>
> You might want to retest w/ that.
>
> -Eric
>
>>> +
Thanks Eric,
Everything passes now.
Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@....com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists