Re: [PATCH 2/2] generic/530: only use xfs-specific mkfs options when testing on xfs

["Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 06:16:26PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 09:37:53PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 09:26:06AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 12:11:07AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 12:12:42AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > > > +if [ $FSTYP = "xfs" ]; then
> > > > > +    _scratch_mkfs "-l size=256m" >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> > > > > +else
> > > > > +    _scratch_mkfs >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> > > > > +fi
> > > > 
> > > > We really need to document why generic tests have file system specific
> > > > hacks.  And yes, that's a request for Dave who originally added it
> > > > without any explanation and not Ted.
> > > 
> > > Creating and then unlinking 50000 files is journal space bound
> > > when using default 64MB logs on small test filesystems. Increasing
> > > the journal size to 256MB halved the runtime of this test.
> > 
> > Please explain this in thet test.  And you probably also want to
> > ensure that you don't force the log smaller than 256 either, otherwise
> > people in 10 or 20 years will wonder why this test forces logs to
> > be so small.
> 
> I'll help to add this comment when I merge this patch, if Dave hope to
> keep "-l size=256m" for xfs.

What happens if someone runs fstests with a 128M external log device?
Is this one of those cases where _scratch_mkfs notices the mkfs failure
and formats without MKFS_OPTIONS?  And if that's true, what about my
test configs that set MKFS_OPTIONS to test new non-default features?

--D

> Thanks,
> Zorro
> 
> > 
> 
>