From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 026A3647 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 03:50:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721706634; cv=none; b=iLi/Hty/1Pp+LJZpzvsW9rJ4rDGX5BMiTwh6IRj1L7pUJrtUJ5bmYrNnG/1+WZH10n5b4BsKN3LuzuhTVZAI/vyd4j2/xb/htEkQYLTisxa2vr6lmVJRT3QQPpeHg7mpL2Rdhpz74Jcdtlb24ydp3q2LrB9o9YzlJKJjHz6awJc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721706634; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VL+antW8I5iiercs/9/FXba3cPA2BzESZqTAC/vV92o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=GXio7woMFMkxonICPiHmWWOXWFTMaLYeTSsJu4tVHMZ9xuEw0Kd5IqlG1E7SftM9hhSsVArHeGpaYZx3OgWPMuICJQ3TPT4f3FGbJP4w7R+M5qbUnf4WZXKfSkaQcDT6pWtHdGGUgcqAlbQBtwzV6hcE/EozSrKWCUw9hytZGPA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=F/QkXuDB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="F/QkXuDB" Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-173-48-115-17.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.115.17]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 46N3oHZO018818 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Jul 2024 23:50:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1721706619; bh=7/wgPEIdjHjNGqUp1ggxMxPVaWpfsNlSZfq2UMcBUFs=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=F/QkXuDBCFqCo8pnF59EQJ92Obp+l+FzJFzZwo2pUiOnOoVqeKrDdluHmrVDF5jnn iws0QXqWp88+JAOThp1JrKtH5oU9mBVKcgUWacMWQgHh+MSAllgLNKoZX+KmxuIEjt RYXB7KIhUkOAFodWrkAczy0aQciL4TjU91a5tSFKgCLlNGyoAAKr92Ztp1OgvyZ5uc YzAzq4NmI8EFVohjduM9TJeYBzX3Fw3E+HPZhPUS9wO8Dr9Lg1mR6/zgWp3x8nFZoA RkxAAIZFigXXV2Dhz//U0YYv84hRzSwJN+YqAnGyzGH4tr1tVdX8jvHqCVtvuwm+iL Nh5hiUJV5NLZQ== Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id DF2CA15C0300; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 23:50:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 23:50:16 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Zorro Lang , "Darrick J. Wong" , fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: don't fail tests when mkfs options collide Message-ID: <20240723035016.GB3222663@mit.edu> References: <20240723000042.240981-1-hch@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@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: <20240723000042.240981-1-hch@lst.de> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 05:00:31PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been running some tests with forced large log sizes, and forced > sector sizes, and get a fair amount of failures because these options > collide with options forced by the tests themselves. The series here was > my attempt to fix this by not failing the tests in this case but _notrun > them and print the options that caused them to fail. Yeah, it's a bit of a mess. It's not been an issue for ext4 because mkfs.ext4 allows options specified later in the command-line to override earlier ones. > So what could we do instead? We might distinguish better between tests > that just want to create a scratch file system with $MKFS_OPTIONS from > the xfstests config, and those (file system specific ones) that want > to force very specific file system configurations. How do we get > there? There's a third possibility, which is sometimes the test might explicitly want the mkfs options to be merged together. For example, in the ext4/4k configuration we have "-b 4096", while the ext4/1k confiuration option we might have "-b 1024". And we might want to have that *combined* with a test which is enabling fscrypt feature, so we can test fscrypt with a 4k block size, as well as fsvrypt with a 1k blocksize. That being said, that doesn't always make sense, and sometimes the combination doesn't make any sense. It's not clear what the best solution should be. - Ted