Re: [PATCH] xfs/157: mkfs does not need a specific fssize

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 02:49:26PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > How about unset the MKFS_OPTIONS for this test? As it already tests rtdev
> > and logdev by itself. Or call _notrun if MKFS_OPTIONS has "rmapbt=1"?
> 
> That will exclude quite a few configurations.  Also, how many people
> actually turn on rmapbt explicitly now?
> 
> > Any better idea?
> 
> I'm afraid not.  Maybe I should restructure the test to force the rt
> device to be 500MB even when we're not using the fake rtdev?

All of this is really just bandaids or the fundamental problem that:

 - we try to abitrarily mix config and test provided options without
   checking that they are compatible in general, and with what the test
   is trying to specifically
 - some combination of options and devices (size, block size, sequential
   required zoned) fundamentally can't work

I haven't really found an easy solution for them.  In the long run I
suspect we need to split tests between those that just take the options
from the config and are supposed to work with all options (maybe a few
notruns that fundamentally can't work).  And those that want to test
specific mkfs/mount options and hard code them but don't take options
from the input.