From: Rich Johnston Subject: Re: xfstests: test ext4 statfs Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:28:32 -0500 Message-ID: <508E8480.5020507@sgi.com> References: <5089749C.4050003@redhat.com> <508AD066.4090102@sgi.com> <508AD8E8.1040301@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xfs-oss , ext4 development To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.179.30]:46232 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753911Ab2J2N0x (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:26:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <508AD8E8.1040301@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 >>> >>> --- >>> > > > 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