From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:49081 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726179AbfEHGzb (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 May 2019 02:55:31 -0400 Message-ID: <5CD27D5C.4040003@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 14:55:24 +0800 From: xuyang MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: question about xfstests case xfs/297 References: <5CD14717.7070205@cn.fujitsu.com> <20190507163711.GA5208@magnolia> In-Reply-To: <20190507163711.GA5208@magnolia> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: fstests List-ID: 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. >> Kind regards, >> Yang Xu >> >> >> > >