|
Replies:
5
-
Last Post:
Jun 9, 2006 1:23 PM
by: eschrock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ztest failing in ztest_vdev_attach_detach()
Posted:
Jun 9, 2006 10:36 AM
|
|
[No Body]
|
|
|
Ricardo Correia
zfs-opensolaris@wizy...
|
|
|
|
Re: ztest failing in ztest_vdev_attach_detach()
Posted:
Jun 9, 2006 10:36 AM
in response to: Guest
|
|
Ok, I'm glad to know my analysis was correct (I wasn't sure about it, though).
This means that the ztest port to Linux now doesn't have any known bugs ;)
Thank you for the fast response.
On Friday 09 June 2006 18:26, you wrote:
> This happens if you have:
>
> replacing
> foo
> bar
>
> And you try to replace 'foo' with 'bar. Sure enough, the old code used
> to do:
>
> if (parent is replacing)
> return ENOTSUP
> if (initialize new vdev failed)
> return failure (EBUSY)
>
> Now it switched the order:
>
> if (initialize new vdev failed)
> return failure (EBUSY)
> if (parent is replacing)
> return ENOTSUP
>
> Both cases are correct, its just a matter of which error condition gets
> triggered first. You cannot trigger this through the CLI (since it
> refuses to issue the ioctl because said disk is actively in use). I'll
> think some more about it, but most likely the correct fix is the one
> below.
>
> - Eric
>
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:12:51AM -0700, Eric Schrock wrote:
> > Yes, I'm seeing this unexpectedly fail with EBUSY (errno 16) instead of
> > ENOTSUP. This was definitely caused by the hot spare work, and it's my
> > fault for not running ztest more rigorously. I'll file a bug and take a
> > look. For now, you can change (in ztest.c):
> >
> > if (error == EOVERFLOW)
> > expected_error = error;
> >
> > To:
> >
> > if (error == EOVERFLOW || error == EBUSY)
> > expected_error = error;
> >
> > I've been able to run this way for 10 minutes, with the 'rarely ->
> > always' change.
> >
> > Sorry about that,
> >
> > - Eric
>
> --
> Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development
> http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
_______________________________________________
zfs-code mailing list
zfs-code at opensolaris dot org
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-code
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
799
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: ztest failing in ztest_vdev_attach_detach()
Posted:
Jun 9, 2006 10:50 AM
in response to: Ricardo Correia
|
|
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 06:36:23PM +0100, Ricardo Correia wrote:
> Ok, I'm glad to know my analysis was correct (I wasn't sure about it, though).
>
> This means that the ztest port to Linux now doesn't have any known bugs ;)
>
> Thank you for the fast response.
Sweet! Let us know if you had to make any changes to non-zfs_context
code, and we can integrate the changes upstream to make future
maintenance/other ports easier. FYI, the fix I'll putback is slightly
different from what I mentioned previously:
------- usr/src/cmd/ztest/ztest.c -------
Index: usr/src/cmd/ztest/ztest.c
--- /ws/onnv-clone/usr/src/cmd/ztest/ztest.c Fri Jun 2 23:04:35 2006
+++ /export/eschrock/on-fixes/usr/src/cmd/ztest/ztest.c Fri Jun 9
10:46:35 2006
@@ -934,16 +934,16 @@
*
* If newvd is already part of the pool, it should fail with
* EBUSY.
*
* If newvd is too small, it should fail with EOVERFLOW.
*/
- if (pvd->vdev_ops != &vdev_mirror_ops &&
+ if (newvd != NULL)
+ expected_error = EBUSY;
+ else if (pvd->vdev_ops != &vdev_mirror_ops &&
pvd->vdev_ops != &vdev_root_ops &&
(!replacing || pvd->vdev_ops == &vdev_replacing_ops))
expected_error = ENOTSUP;
- else if (newvd != NULL)
- expected_error = EBUSY;
else if (newsize < oldsize)
expected_error = EOVERFLOW;
else if (ashift > oldvd->vdev_top->vdev_ashift)
expected_error = EDOM;
else
We already had the check for EBUSY, it just needed to be moved ahead of
ENOTSUP just like the associated code.
- Eric
--
Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
_______________________________________________
zfs-code mailing list
zfs-code at opensolaris dot org
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-code
|
|
|
|
|
Ricardo Correia
zfs-opensolaris@wizy...
|
|
|
|
Re: ztest failing in ztest_vdev_attach_detach()
Posted:
Jun 9, 2006 11:48 AM
in response to: eschrock
|
|
Ok, the changes are available here: http://www.wizy.org/files/zfs-linux.patch
A few notes:
1) The patch includes the header Solaris/Linux differences. I'm not sure
what's relevant, if anything. I have included some Solaris-specific macros
and typedefs in sol_compat.h, so you will see some #includes removed.
By the way, I'm not exactly a C or UNIX expert (not even close), so if there
are any glaring errors in the #includes, please let me know :p
2) I don't know if I got the necessary casts correctly. I had to do it to
eliminate gcc warnings, I don't know how it'll work with the Sun Studio
compiler. I have tested them with gcc-3.4.5 in both x86 and x86-64 modes.
3) gcc spits a warning in this code: 'struct foo bar = { 0 }'.. I had to
change all such code to 'struct foo bar = {}'. The {0} syntax is correct
standard C, however.
4) The directory structure is not the same as in the OpenSolaris sources,
sorry about that.
On Friday 09 June 2006 18:50, Eric Schrock wrote:
> Sweet! Let us know if you had to make any changes to non-zfs_context
> code, and we can integrate the changes upstream to make future
> maintenance/other ports easier. FYI, the fix I'll putback is slightly
> ...
_______________________________________________
zfs-code mailing list
zfs-code at opensolaris dot org
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-code
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
272
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: ztest failing in ztest_vdev_attach_detach()
Posted:
Jun 9, 2006 12:15 PM
in response to: Ricardo Correia
|
|
Ricardo Correia wrote:
> Ok, the changes are available here: http://www.wizy.org/files/zfs-linux.patch
>
> A few notes:
>
> 1) The patch includes the header Solaris/Linux differences. I'm not sure
> what's relevant, if anything. I have included some Solaris-specific macros
> and typedefs in sol_compat.h, so you will see some #includes removed.
>
> By the way, I'm not exactly a C or UNIX expert (not even close), so if there
> are any glaring errors in the #includes, please let me know :p
>
> 2) I don't know if I got the necessary casts correctly. I had to do it to
> eliminate gcc warnings, I don't know how it'll work with the Sun Studio
> compiler. I have tested them with gcc-3.4.5 in both x86 and x86-64 modes.
>
> 3) gcc spits a warning in this code: 'struct foo bar = { 0 }'.. I had to
> change all such code to 'struct foo bar = {}'. The {0} syntax is correct
> standard C, however.
We are compiling this will both the Sun Compilers and gcc 3.4.3
We use a tool "cw" compiler wrapper to translate Sun Compiler options
into gcc options.
http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/on/usr/src/tools/cw/cw.c
_______________________________________________
zfs-code mailing list
zfs-code at opensolaris dot org
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-code
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
799
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: ztest failing in ztest_vdev_attach_detach()
Posted:
Jun 9, 2006 1:23 PM
in response to: marks
|
|
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 01:15:23PM -0600, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
>
> We are compiling this will both the Sun Compilers and gcc 3.4.3
> We use a tool "cw" compiler wrapper to translate Sun Compiler options
> into gcc options.
>
In particular, it looks like we're using the folowing options:
-Wall
-Wno-unknown-pragmas
-Wno-missing-braces
-Wno-sign-compare
-Wno-parentheses
-Wno-uninitialized
-Wno-implicit-function-declaration
-Wno-unused
-Wno-trigraphs
-Wno-char-subscripts
-Wno-switch
As well as the c99 flag, which gets turned into '-std=gnu99' on gcc.
- Eric
--
Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
_______________________________________________
zfs-code mailing list
zfs-code at opensolaris dot org
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-code
|
|
|
|
|
