Re: fs tests failing

[Chuck Silvers <chuq%chuq.com@localhost>]

On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 05:08:39PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On 01.09.2012 16:54, Paul Goyette wrote:
> >>Yes, I understand that.  Compare the total number of test cases
> >>between the runs and the number of successful test cases.
> >
> >Ah, yes, I see that now.
> >
> >There was an increase of 41 in total test cases.  And it appears that 39
> >of those 41 new test cases failed.
> >
> >None of the old tests are failing, only the new ones.
> 
> Yes.  And with my older (well, prehistoric ;) versions of the
> drivers, "only" 20 or so of the tests resulted in a kernel panic
> while the rest passed.  So I'm hoping someone with more recent vfs
> familiarity than myself can tell of the top of their head why a
> namei on zfs results in this:
> 
> panic: kernel diagnostic assertion "VOP_ISLOCKED(*newsearchdir_ret)
> == LK_EXCLUSIVE" failed


int
zfs_netbsd_lock(void *v)
{
        struct vop_lock_args *ap = v;

        return 0;
}


our port of ZFS doesn't obey the BSD locking rules.  ZFS doesn't need
the BSD vnode lock for internal consistency since it does its own locking
internally, but the above check and possibly others have more recently
been added to ensure that file systems do the correct locking for the
fs-independent logic that relies on the BSD vnode lock.

ZFS needs some more work before automated testing of it would be worthwhile.

I started looking into updating the opensolaris-derived stuff
(ZFS and dtrace) from the current freebsd version, but it looks
like a fair amount of work and I haven't gotten very far.
if someone else wants to work on this I'll be happy to share
what I've learned.

-Chuck