From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.145]:38948 "EHLO ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750709AbaFXEii (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 00:38:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:38:35 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] generic/017: Do not create file systems with different block sizes Message-ID: <20140624043835.GF9508@dastard> References: <1403535255-14601-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <1403535255-14601-2-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1403535255-14601-2-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> Sender: xfstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lukas Czerner Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, fdmanana@gmail.com List-ID: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 04:54:15PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: > User takes care about specifying mkfs options he wishes to test and the > test itself should not change it if it's not strictly necessary for the > test itself. > > In this case it is not necessary and we should only test configuration > provided by the user. Moreover if the block size was already specified > some mkfs utilities does not handle multiple of the same parameters and > the mkfs utility fails making it re-try with only provided options > (ignoring what user specified), which is wrong. I disagree strongly with this justification. The test is perfectly fine: it is allowed to do whatever it wants with mkfs and mount options. It is up to the implementations of the specific FSTYP mkfs implementation called from _scratch_mkfs to handle conflicting/unsupported options sanely, not the test.... > In this case it's also a problem for btrfs file system which does not > support block size < page size. i.e. _scratch_mkfs_btrfs needs to either filter that out or _fail/_not_run the test if it can't.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com