linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eryu Guan <guan@eryu.me>
To: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	"Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 7/9] generic/620: Use _mkfs_dev_blocksized to use 4k bs
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2021 21:32:48 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YQ/dAFFDLp0edZUl@desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210803050622.yh2wn2fhzxn4jjbv@riteshh-domain>

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 10:36:22AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> 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.

I don't see how this test always requires 4k blocksize, 1k blocksized
xfs also passes the test.

> > >
> > > <error log with 64k bs>
> > > mkfs.ext4: Input/output error while writing out and closing file system

Is this a bug in mkfs.ext4 or expected error (unsupported config)? If
it's an expected error, it'd be better to explain it in commit log as
well.

> > >
> > > 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?

If the test always requires 4k blocksize, forcing creating a 4k
blocksize filesystem doesn't increase any test coverage, I don't see any
point introducing a new _mkfs_dev_blocksized helper just to do so.

And even if we decide to force 4k blocksize config, I think it'd be
better to update _scratch_mkfs_blocksized() to take device as argument,
like what _check_scratch_fs() does, so we don't duplicate all the code
to create fs with specified blocksize.

Thanks,
Eryu

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

  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-08 13:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-21  5:27 [PATCHv2 0/9] xfstests: 64K blocksize related fixes Ritesh Harjani
2021-07-21  5:27 ` [PATCHv2 1/9] ext4/003: Fix this test on 64K platform for dax config Ritesh Harjani
2021-07-21  5:27 ` [PATCHv2 2/9] ext4/027: Correct the right code of block and inode bitmap Ritesh Harjani
2021-07-21  5:27 ` [PATCHv2 3/9] ext4/306: Add -b blocksize parameter too to avoid failure with DAX config Ritesh Harjani
2021-07-21  5:27 ` [PATCHv2 4/9] ext4/022: exclude this test for dax config on 64KB pagesize platform Ritesh Harjani
2021-07-21  5:27 ` [PATCHv2 5/9] generic/031: Fix the test case for 64k blocksize config Ritesh Harjani
2021-08-01 16:00   ` Eryu Guan
2021-08-03  5:00     ` Ritesh Harjani
2021-08-08 12:36       ` Eryu Guan
2021-07-21  5:27 ` [PATCHv2 6/9] common/rc: Add _mkfs_dev_blocksized functionality Ritesh Harjani
2021-07-21  5:28 ` [PATCHv2 7/9] generic/620: Use _mkfs_dev_blocksized to use 4k bs Ritesh Harjani
2021-08-01 16:03   ` Eryu Guan
2021-08-03  5:06     ` Ritesh Harjani
2021-08-08 13:32       ` Eryu Guan [this message]
2021-07-21  5:28 ` [PATCHv2 8/9] common/attr: Cleanup end of line whitespaces issues Ritesh Harjani
2021-07-21  5:28 ` [PATCHv2 9/9] common/attr: Reduce MAX_ATTRS to leave some overhead for 64K blocksize Ritesh Harjani
2021-08-01 16:05 ` [PATCHv2 0/9] xfstests: 64K blocksize related fixes Eryu Guan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YQ/dAFFDLp0edZUl@desktop \
    --to=guan@eryu.me \
    --cc=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=riteshh@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).