Re: [PATCHv2 7/9] generic/620: Use _mkfs_dev_blocksized to use 4k bs

[Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>]

On 21/08/02 12:03AM, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:58:00AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > ext4 with 64k blocksize (passed by user config) fails with below error for
> > this given test which requires dmhugedisk. Since this test anyways only
> > requires 4k bs, so use _mkfs_dev_blocksized() to fix this.
> >
> > <error log with 64k bs>
> > mkfs.ext4: Input/output error while writing out and closing file system
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  tests/generic/620 | 4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/620 b/tests/generic/620
> > index b052376f..444e682d 100755
> > --- a/tests/generic/620
> > +++ b/tests/generic/620
> > @@ -42,7 +42,9 @@ sectors=$((2*1024*1024*1024*17))
> >  chunk_size=128
> >
> >  _dmhugedisk_init $sectors $chunk_size
> > -_mkfs_dev $DMHUGEDISK_DEV
> > +
> > +# Use 4k blocksize.
> > +_mkfs_dev_blocksized 4096 $DMHUGEDISK_DEV
>
> We run the test by forcing 4k blocksize, which could be tested in 4k
> blocksize setup. Maybe it's another case that should _notrun in 64k
> blocksize setup.

So for testing that, first I should mkfs and mount a scratch device with the
passed mount/mkfs options and then see if the blocksize passed is 64K, if yes
I should _notrun this case.

Isn't the current approach of (_mkfs_dev_blocksized 4096) is better then above
approach?

-ritesh

> Thanks,
> Eryu
>
> >  _mount $DMHUGEDISK_DEV $SCRATCH_MNT || _fail "mount failed for $DMHUGEDISK_DEV $SCRATCH_MNT"
> >  testfile=$SCRATCH_MNT/testfile-$seq
> >
> > --
> > 2.31.1