From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C827F3F for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:59:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C07304043 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id mFqYVygoICtUFnHh for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 09:58:59 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: use minimum log size in xfs/016 Message-ID: <20131018225859.GA4446@dastard> References: <1382116574-7766-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1382116574-7766-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Brian Foster Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:16:14PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > Test xfs/016 fails to run due to invalid mkfs options. The log size > is reported as too small according to the minimum log size > calculation: > > log size 512 blocks too small, minimum size is 853 blocks > > Update log_size to the currently specified minimum. > > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster > --- > tests/xfs/016 | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/016 b/tests/xfs/016 > index 2fc6af2..e52f80c 100755 > --- a/tests/xfs/016 > +++ b/tests/xfs/016 > @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ _supported_os Linux > rm -f $seqres.full > > # mkfs sizes > -log_size=2097152 > +log_size=3493888 > log_size_bb=`expr $log_size / 512` That shoul dbe fine. I've been ignoring xfs/016 because the configurations I test throw this: xfs/016 21s ... [not run] Cannot mkfs for this test using MKFS_OPTIONS specified And so I haven't noticed if it was failing or not. Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs