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
next prev parent 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).