From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02A05C433EF for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 17:33:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D113660F3A for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 17:33:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229810AbhJLRf7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:35:59 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:37344 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229495AbhJLRf7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:35:59 -0400 Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-72-74-133-215.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [72.74.133.215]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 19CHXq9O026666 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:33:53 -0400 Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 7A6FA15C00CA; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:33:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:33:52 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Dave Chinner Cc: Anju T Sudhakar , fstests@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] generic/219: Fix test failure on 64k block size Message-ID: References: <20211011075552.196688-1-anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20211011075552.196688-5-anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20211011083639.GC1164794@dread.disaster.area> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211011083639.GC1164794@dread.disaster.area> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 07:36:39PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 01:25:52PM +0530, Anju T Sudhakar wrote: > > Skip this test on 64k, as 4k as taken as the default block size. > > > > Signed-off-by: Anju T Sudhakar > > --- > > But I have a Query: > > This test fails on ext4&xfs with 64k block size. Do we need to > > rephrase this test to incorporate the 64k bs scenario as well? > > If not we can skip this test. > > Right, we should fix the test to use multiples of block size rather > than fixed byte sizes as we do for all the other tests that need to > work across different block sizes. e.g. probe the block size after > mkfs and then convert the "48k" numbers to "$((12 * $bs))". ... and then make sure that you understand what the test is trying to do, and with those changes, audit the test to make sure it is correct and valid when the block size is as small as 1k, and as large as 64k. It might require adjusting other parameters, including the size of the scratch file system, etc. Cheers, - Ted