From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A1533D903A for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2026 06:13:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781590437; cv=none; b=HebZJt2QWVADnQE4u6qvqhmt9fLEYgqm8cIpKOC39Pq79qV1DyIwIR1gNHLrnaaEEtcP/1pIcYT85IgNvnaEaTDkXcKUqWdq+mytxZNRZTMnDT/9d4aasa+iYFHx7N07YaIgJ6ddvCJwciZyt+1clroWhgqrqwkwwpxAEvx0OJ8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781590437; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8m65cvfGCQDa7p2lQQqZsdfIXxNQTEzBueextNtfrIg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=tsVUM/Qy09iMwOve57jEfr1/16w+X+f88sUe6V/p8MmNWoskGH/89B0GGMdr9HOaDLZ6jJEazLjDe2lXvoPYZntQ+RTPyMgihBUqOlE6q6a3NSGYR/h1nZG3GpfuThulMB9X94xvpHT29mutfi1WLyBfbkMLMBcgkHcZCWyza4U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=aRsm4lwS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="aRsm4lwS" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7373C1F000E9; Tue, 16 Jun 2026 06:13:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1781590436; bh=Vgnw8P6OyEhi7knfh0r2SbClbXHv9kU8JVoBMCqOq1I=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=aRsm4lwSInf773y2YavThWsCOZlOmfXBkfwHrrO/wwtue+3iwPOqTl6Qsxj+C530e PNsMM1HgkwI2rBcGCCPkNoQ6sp8WaWmPIv89Tr1FJ23O7nLcRLv+haMWAfBuwIba7l Wn/1Jbx+8p1Ifwc6Yfm0Y/MhsVrLygC0amecS23Eh4vCkl6u3Te9oWEUI0qQPG5HUN MrRkfSoTqcU0RfkwfsrglUM7qqxvZ2HfZ10q8/nHfeOkoBUubgDfSltFMUFJU6CepU Tqx89MNBVxcalJdDVfqEp2WwjmH5sxdfRYk8qW3xBEl1Y3DHNze6Do9+jWSag1g3Fb Unu6Cxi4Fckmg== Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2026 14:13:50 +0800 From: Zorro Lang To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic/366: check minimum dio size correctly Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , fstests@vger.kernel.org References: <20260608070010.1285677-1-hch@lst.de> <20260615133331.GA26132@lst.de> <20260616052831.GA23960@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260616052831.GA23960@lst.de> On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 07:28:31AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 04:13:22AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > Oh, if we only need to run it once, how about: > > > > blksz="" > > for (( i = 0; i < $iterations; i++)); do > > ... > > if [ -z "$blksz" ];then > > blksz=`$here/src/min_dio_alignment $SCRATCH_MNT $SCRATCH_DEV` > > if [[ $blksz -gt 512 ]]; then > > _notrun "512 byte dio alignment required" > > fi > > fi > > ... > > I can look into it. But to me this doesn't really seem worth the > effort as calling min_dio_alignment is so cheap compared to the > mount/unmount cycle never mind everything else we do in the loop. Sure Christoph :) If you feel that's a bit of a time sink, we could also just add a comment explaining that re-checking the DIO alignment on every iteration isn't strictly necessary. I'm just concerned that future developers might mistake it for a hard requirement when modifying this test. Thanks, Zorro >