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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD8A7C05027 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 16:29:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229887AbjBFQ3U (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2023 11:29:20 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41912 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229876AbjBFQ3S (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2023 11:29:18 -0500 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C09B274AA for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 08:29:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C058222F3; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 16:29:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1675700955; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=sxhOE/PhCeVQ1u2c1cXeHEGT8IGdkI8L8mZNk0chX9s=; b=XCuw98qybWSl5WUmBtqhe3uVb8BVkmm+iQtLM5TeQwJ+E/646fPeCVlQBCd5Bajyl1VU7E my4H3KAvK9DUc89RWRlrF9R9ctjo49uzwwM+JWOn613lSAsqK+8ndlFdsmAK1lipxGqSpE oJafXASDxwieNJ4zwffhLWm8OJnFbFc= Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD96D138E7; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 16:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id 0v5JNNoq4WPGDQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 06 Feb 2023 16:29:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 17:29:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] README: Add tiny note concerning required scratch devs for btrfs testing Content-Language: en-US To: Zorro Lang Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org References: <20230131123839.16084-1-gniebler@suse.com> <20230131123839.16084-3-gniebler@suse.com> <20230206145207.kik5cczepdlgmexa@zlang-mailbox> From: Gabriel Niebler In-Reply-To: <20230206145207.kik5cczepdlgmexa@zlang-mailbox> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org Am 06.02.23 um 15:52 schrieb Zorro Lang: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:38:39PM +0100, Gabriel Niebler wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Niebler >> --- >> README | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/README b/README >> index 008d3875..574cdd34 100644 >> --- a/README >> +++ b/README >> @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ Setup Environment >> - device contents will be destroyed. >> >> 4. (optional) Create SCRATCH device pool. >> - - needed for BTRFS testing >> + - needed for BTRFS testing (some tests require up to 5 disks of 10GB each) > > Not sure about this part, so btrfs recommend 5 disks of 10GB each in > SCRATCH_DEV_POOL, to run all btrfs related tests? Does anyone know that? > Or can you provide the subcase names which need "5 disks of 10GB each", > to help to check and review? Of course (and thanks for asking, as it turns out my recollection was slightly wrong on that one): To begin with, btrfs/011[1] states the "5 disks" requirement in the lengthy comment at the top of the file: """ # The amount of tests done depends on the number of devices in the # SCRATCH_DEV_POOL. For full test coverage, at least 5 devices should # be available (e.g. 5 partitions). "" ... but it doesn't say anything about device size. btrfs/027[2] however checks the presence of 5 devices in $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL directly in code and also runs a check to ensure that all of these devices are *of the same size*. And then there are at least two tests that require $SCRATCH_DEV to be 10GB or more in size: - btrfs/079[3], which writes a 10G file to $SCRATCH_MNT and - btrfs/253[4], which directly creates a 10G FS on $SCRATCH_DEV. *Taken together*, this means that for full btrfs test coverage, one needs a $SCRATCH_DEV_POOL with at least 5 devices of equal size in it and that size has to be at least 10GB. But that makes the remark wrong, strictly speaking, as there's no single test that requires "at least 5 devices of 10GB each". How about this: "(for full btrfs test coverage, use at least 5 devices of equal size and at least 10GB)" > P.S. I'm thinking about if this "(...)" should be moved to below item. > vvvvv >> - specifies 3 or more independent SCRATCH devices via the SCRATCH_DEV_POOL >> variable e.g SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/sdc" Fine by me! :-) [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/tree/tests/btrfs/011#n10 [2]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/tree/tests/btrfs/027#n20 [3]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/tree/tests/btrfs/079#n44 [4]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git/tree/tests/btrfs/253#n90