From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 0E4057081B for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:06:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738184786; cv=none; b=VEc6YCJICv6nsFJiNtgR63c/3PpmKT/FPLQZA8INrKPAKEdEoDHpsrtPvgZtJAf2E2iNkz8f2gl4iy+hRXKnx0siRzFfqF/75oxQnEmmAq2KygD0ZR2felsts4/st9AH9VuEDjOpSpC5f+51N4qCr3k+r7QyyiiU3vmTuWH3ttQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738184786; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UAOIOLaien8ucwYlofDp4qUSe+Cw/YQyERLn/QQlbpE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=h4NtLr+IjYJKbk3JaMVWAmjAro/bm+D3trUoFi1nNehFau/vIA+XsnrP+al6k7DQHmLyJJmzIfxbIh95C01YbCMigLwqzTpPM09Xhw5s3AdrIcfmtPmTKNVP2vDgGTwTTlorC5BbUaaGdBTn65Zkhump4p0/mAf7GDUDuPmiPmk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=rUu9P3lM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="rUu9P3lM" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A040C4CED1; Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:06:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1738184785; bh=UAOIOLaien8ucwYlofDp4qUSe+Cw/YQyERLn/QQlbpE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=rUu9P3lMHs3r/9odM1SR5QR0/Xuhbe23SOnaLjfODdtaz/GPXvftoXW0PytOuYADH awuEsofnlVLCG5WXrkFsTiHBxS5ODCXPfFEGqrpae3v55IxgtsPArPqAuHRwcvZMcn GWBQ1RNACOhDvLTzYzOGNHlPdxHZB2DVe6FiH/D0HaL/2QCjMADRyCW2RgAHlPD+C5 Bu3MhrarvtT0ICwGTa3fi+kF7jKYZQr2jg0nRCdFOKWccvtfgMdoPUvRP7hc71lC0B RQ8rnnnBjisv8FnBPzqvJVUkCG8Cff9R3FQx969d4RuLKjTFaXjH8nN6P9mU68lDDO Vh09HzXnz2VQw== Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2025 13:06:24 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: zlang@kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs/541: _notrun if the file system can't mount Message-ID: <20250129210624.GZ3557695@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20250128071449.676462-1-hch@lst.de> <20250128192506.GT3557695@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20250129054918.GA29053@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: <20250129054918.GA29053@lst.de> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 06:49:18AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 11:25:06AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 08:14:48AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > A file system created without an RT section might not be able to mount > > > with an rtdev specified if the RT device has a larger LBA size. > > > > Where does the mount failure occur? The initial mount (where we specify > > -o rtdev but sb_rblocks is still zero) should succeed because > > xfs_rtmount_init ignores m_rtdev_targp if !rblocks, right? So it's only > > when you get to growfs and we try to read the device that things fail? > > There only is a single mount in the test. > > The test only clears the rtdev for the mkfs call, not the mount call. > As XFS doesn't allow adding a new rtdev at runtime, just expanding the > file system to the already passed but not actually used rt device in > growfs that's actually needed, even if it sounds counterintuitive. > > (that being said I sent the patch directly from my zoned branch, > so it won't apply as-is due to context issues) Gross, it's the set_blocksize call in xfs_setsize_buftarg that trips everything up. But, it makes sense that one cannot mix sector sizes nor mount an rtdev with a larger sector size than what's configured on the data device. Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" --D