Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] [XM-TEST] block device write verify test 2nd attempt

[Ewan Mellor <ewan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 01:35:35PM +0100, Harry Butterworth wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 12:40 +0100, Ewan Mellor wrote:
> > On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 11:35:55AM +0100, Harry Butterworth wrote:
> > 
> > > The only difference from the last version of the patch is that the minor
> > > version number in configure.ac is incremented.
> > > 
> > > >From the patch:
> > > 
> > > +# This test imports a ram disk device as a physical device into a domU.
> > > +# The domU initialises the ram disk with data from /dev/urandom and
> > > calculates
> > > +# the md5 checksum of the data (using tee as it is written so as to
> > > avoid
> > > +# reading it back from the device which might potentially mask
> > > problems).
> > > +# The domU is stopped and the md5 checksum of the data on the device is
> > > +# calculated by dom0.  The test succeeds if the checksums match,
> > > indicating
> > > +# that all the data written by domU was sucessfully committed to the
> > > device.
> > > +
> > > 
> > > This patch also enables tee and fancy head in busybox on the ramdisk.  I
> > > have tested the patch with both `make existing' where the tests run but
> > > the new test fails because the ramdisk is missing tee and fancy head and
> > > `make` where the test passes successfully.
> > 
> > Why don't you use dd instead of head -c?
> 
> I tried using dd with a block size of 1 and a count of the right number
> of bytes but the test was very slow.  I didn't want to assume a 512b
> block size and I'm not very good at shell script so didn't manage to
> work out how to do it better.

dd bs=<number> count=1 should do just fine.

> > Why don't you just fix the size of the datablock that you write to the
> > ramdisk, instead of determining the current size of the ramdisk with cat
> > /dev/hda1 | wc -c?
> 
> I wanted to test writing at the device limits.  Sometimes there are off
> by one errors that mean you can't write the last sector of a block
> device.
> 
> cat | wc -c was the most robust way I could think of for getting the
> size.

How about blockdev --getsize64 /dev/ram1?

Ewan.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel