Re: [PATCH 2/2] generic/017: Do not create file systems with different block sizes

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

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