From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.223.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57A982F2910 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2025 22:43:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758235434; cv=none; b=OhSDYx36GP0OKmvDElMSr8dYu0jrCHVB5NEvIBLI25ur4enz8lGYxt2qI2Rg4DGueNZByO9ifrTJc+ZgJRqSEnGn102oWTutuWnJ8Izu9PTnPwRO+IcyClqVTZIAIjOeZnaNNFmh0avPOPitk5F6A8egkc03TzF65hhTm8kOczw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758235434; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LeLYXqiwr8N+wojp+rmA9QZVtDyMuXrGv2PIYjBW1MA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=nzHWyixJdOWCz7+WxF0hrYWhgWErNZ2fJ2eFDyEnPZvG/DW2/6xc3PeyBY8C9pllAI3jhreChJMpJHZyL6mr33ZN5evhf4OyYnmbMOGSIWz78VIsLeXuORNgjvZknyOyYqiUCcbyelAqCfJNSKco81vMD1/EWTSMlDgogoMEA08= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=D2Vivhtp; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=D2Vivhtp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="D2Vivhtp"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="D2Vivhtp" Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 688701F388; Thu, 18 Sep 2025 22:43:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1758235430; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc: mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uNpbFswOtYcxJ34TXk5ElK+xleinprdU9DiAThCdBWQ=; b=D2VivhtpayNkBFJn1q2AE8Jiuo2z7W4/0DM8L3vxrFcKXPrRTOzrlN5JNdLZ7IN0mgg1qg w+YHhYZdKJs9Wfu52ByxfqUj3mGc65DlYq1GuEasY8g6JNZA4692auTifGwNRS0Ecvk2aA r1mEEEI4CEcJYfq8r+GxORGUwMnb6Ds= Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=D2Vivhtp DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1758235430; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc: mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uNpbFswOtYcxJ34TXk5ElK+xleinprdU9DiAThCdBWQ=; b=D2VivhtpayNkBFJn1q2AE8Jiuo2z7W4/0DM8L3vxrFcKXPrRTOzrlN5JNdLZ7IN0mgg1qg w+YHhYZdKJs9Wfu52ByxfqUj3mGc65DlYq1GuEasY8g6JNZA4692auTifGwNRS0Ecvk2aA r1mEEEI4CEcJYfq8r+GxORGUwMnb6Ds= Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ECF313A39; Thu, 18 Sep 2025 22:43:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id HCqiCCWLzGj4XAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Thu, 18 Sep 2025 22:43:49 +0000 From: Qu Wenruo To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH 0/3] btrfs: fix false alerts when running with 8K block size and 4K page size Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:13:24 +0930 Message-ID: <20250918224327.12979-1-wqu@suse.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.50.1 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 688701F388 X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd1.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.01 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; MID_CONTAINS_FROM(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_MISSING_CHARSET(0.50)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.com:s=susede1]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; RBL_SPAMHAUS_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FUZZY_RATELIMITED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.com:dkim,suse.com:mid]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.com:s=susede1]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; SPAMHAUS_XBL(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.com:+] X-Spam-Score: -3.01 I am developing the bs > ps support for btrfs, and now it can pass most btrfs and generic runs. Some failures are due to the limitaions of the current bs > ps, including: - btrfs/023 No RAID56 support, and the test case doesn't respect BTRFS_PROFILE_CONFIGS - btrfs/131 No v1 cache support just like subpage bs support. No big deal, as v1 cache is already marked deprecated. When the full deprecation comes, the test case needs some update. - btrfs/226 No Direct IO support. - btrfs/267 No Direct IO support thus the read falls back to buffered one. The fallback may change the pid thus some mirror is not properly read from disk and no read repair. - btrfs/281 No encoded send support However there are some btrfs failures that are false alerts: - btrfs/012 - btrfs/136 Those are btrfs-convert tests, however ext* doesn't support bs > ps cases yet. Fix them by skip the run if the initial ext* mount failed. - btrfs/192 This one requires 4K nodesize, which implies 4K block size, and conflicts with user specified non-4K block size. - btrfs/30[456] Those test cases have strict 4K block size requirement but still follows the user specified block size during mkfs. Fix btrfs/192 and btrfs/30[456] by explicitly specify 4K block size during mkfs. There is also a minor comment mismatch in btrfs/267: - btrfs/267 is verifying direct read repair but comments says buffered Instead it's btrfs/266 verifying the buffered behavior. So it's purely a comment mismatch. Fix it by explicitly mentioning buffered/direct IO for btrfs/26[67]. Qu Wenruo (3): btrfs/012 btrfs/136: skip the test if ext* doesn't support the block size btrfs/192 btrfs/30[456]: explicitly specify block size to avoid false alerts btrfs/26[67]: update the stale comments tests/btrfs/012 | 3 +++ tests/btrfs/136 | 3 +++ tests/btrfs/192 | 8 ++------ tests/btrfs/266 | 4 ++-- tests/btrfs/267 | 2 +- tests/btrfs/304 | 5 ++--- tests/btrfs/305 | 5 ++--- tests/btrfs/306 | 5 ++--- 8 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) -- 2.51.0