From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 607A115D1; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 05:23:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762925008; cv=none; b=VEKqkTOOFDXZzUDnagJ5df3dU7fwMHlCUgYJqpx4An/kj4Lx6II8rlW81rw5qNA5y1NnvrDNIdgqmLausZxuxTPobGU4sWqFm3glkSc4TqIQfnVvihRYehQaKHB7/Onu8i5Zy5DFxxrAJV+Q3n1b1fC/3Bv8QcAFnjVVUfUC9qY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762925008; c=relaxed/simple; bh=G4AswcjweoTcMDRqGcf3nc+qhS391EN2XY6+IwKLitI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=W/lCoTZn2lhzRVbM3BF6li+ajvcs6Qc71aqlf9F8wcOajcFoPveRLuGvH25wk4CK4u/WXsTyCGDVPD2ABVMsNoCVzcZ1y6sw6XHpDnFaejeyYmAsIc+qx6iLTzWVnVDz3QOQTcCshwhPQraC0mQhXO8s3+Qemwb7IdyQnEpBpDY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=rBmFw60v; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="rBmFw60v" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E1F82C16AAE; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 05:23:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1762925008; bh=G4AswcjweoTcMDRqGcf3nc+qhS391EN2XY6+IwKLitI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=rBmFw60vUaCLqWP2sTvALWy7G8kst4qhmOQauC2I1tKyzlIoeqW21T1UAy7EGmpoH r3HLaN7uvoIRgR47dFW218NULHfky8r5h/zx5WfVFsFpo/VhK1F9ehBZuqZVA+0EYV j+oRnWySQOM52G884nOArkjF7MbjMOajE8fie7vR1M0ZfCW53ofdwt7tTQKPa8b1X4 fLXJlwrxSXFHxtJztCjcME5sM0zFPDQT4DEgl0I08sYhrbqTe/jSVf533O4DRC4rG3 fQ1Pxu28T9fjtWQE0GfT1rcRGeCGQKgA7DMcMy2UADH8Ure5gBDot7Njh9T4LzuogI 6wR2ZWohozbNg== Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2025 21:23:27 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Baokun Li , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, jack@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pankajraghav.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, ebiggers@kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com, chengzhihao1@huawei.com, Baokun Li Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/24] ext4: enable block size larger than page size Message-ID: <20251112052327.GL196358@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <44d3fbd7-1c53-4f94-a4c8-586873a47146@huawei.com> <20251112040220.GO2988753@mit.edu> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251112040220.GO2988753@mit.edu> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:02:20PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 10:19:06AM +0800, Baokun Li wrote: > > I am using a slightly older version of xfstests, and when running the > > 64k tests I also encountered similar failures. The cover letter stated > > "no Oops" for the 64k tests rather than "no new failures," meaning that > > some cases did fail, but no severe issues such as BUG_ON or softlock > > were observed. > > Sorry, I misread your cover letter. It's good you are seeing similar > failures. > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 10:49:19AM +0800, Baokun Li wrote: > > I checked the code of the swapon syscall in mm/swapfile.c, and currently > > the swapfile does not support LBS. Therefore, some failing test cases can > > be filtered out based on this. > > Ah, OK. What's happening is with XFS the swap tests are being skipped > automatically if the swapon fails. From _require_scratch_swapfils: > > *) > if ! swapon "$SCRATCH_MNT/swap" >/dev/null 2>&1; then > _scratch_unmount > _notrun "swapfiles are not supported" > fi > ;; > > > But ext4 has different logic: > > # ext* has supported all variants of swap files since their > # introduction, so swapon should not fail. > > << famous last words >> > > case "$FSTYP" in > ext2|ext3|ext4) > if ! swapon "$SCRATCH_MNT/swap" >/dev/null 2>&1; then > if _check_s_dax "$SCRATCH_MNT/swap" 1 >/dev/null; then > _scratch_unmount > _notrun "swapfiles are not supported" > else > _scratch_unmount > _fail "swapon failed for $FSTYP" > fi > fi > ;; > > > I guess we could add logic to _require_scratch_swapfile in common/rc > to also _notrun if swapon fails and block size is greater that page > size. Or I might just add an exclusion in my test appliance runner > for now for all tests in group swap. https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/176169820051.1433624.4158113392739761085.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs/T/#u Hm? --D > > - Ted >