From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: xuyang <xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: fstests <fstests@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: question about xfstests case xfs/297
Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 18:55:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190509015505.GB5352@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5CD27D5C.4040003@cn.fujitsu.com>
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 02:55:24PM +0800, xuyang wrote:
> on 2019/05/08 0:37, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>
> > [cc fstests]
> >
> > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:51:35PM +0800, xuyang wrote:
> > > Hi darrick
> > >
> > > since commit d0e484a("check: wipe scratch devices between tests")is
> > > merged into xfstests, when I running xfs/297 on kernel 5.1.0-rc5+ with
> > > xfsprogs-4.18.0-3.el8.x86_64, it causes a failure that log size is too
> > > small to reach the minimum size, as below:
> > >
> > > #wipefs -a /dev/sda11 (20G)
> > > /dev/sda11: 4 bytes were erased at offset 0x00000000 (xfs): 58 46 53 42
> > > #mkfs.xfs -f -d agcount=16,su=256k,sw=12 -l su=256k,size=5120b /dev/sda11
> > > log size 5120 blocks too small, minimum size is 5184 blocks
> > That's not related to wipefs at all.
> >
> > The problem here is that your vendor's xfsprogs package turns on reflink
> > by default. The reflink feature increases the minimum log size
> > requirements, which this test doesn't account for, and hence it misses
> > by 64 blocks. Evidently nobody at your vendor's QA department noticed?
> >
> > I only noticed because I started carrying an "enable reflink by default"
> > patch last Thursday and it caused a bunch of regressions on tests that
> > call mkfs.xfs without looping in MKFS_OPTIONS. I will be sending out
> > patches to fix all that shortly and will cc you on them.
> I got it .
> > > upstream xfsprogs doesn't have this problem.
> > Upstream xfsprogs doesn't enable reflink by default.
> >
> > > I am confused about why the min_logblocks becomes larger after wipefs.
> > > Is it a calculating minimum log size bug? Perhaps, I can adjust the
> > > logsize to 5184b. Can you give some advise?
> > Wait for the corrections and help me test them, please? :)
> >
> > --D
> >
> Hi Darrick
>
> I have tested your patchset for 20 times(run seven affected cases), it's ok on my machine.
Cool! Could you reply to the patchset with your Tested-by, please? :)
--D
>
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Yang Xu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-09 1:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <5CD14717.7070205@cn.fujitsu.com>
2019-05-07 16:37 ` question about xfstests case xfs/297 Darrick J. Wong
2019-05-08 6:55 ` xuyang
2019-05-09 1:55 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190509015505.GB5352@magnolia \
--to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox