From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D547F73 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:47:42 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454EEAC001 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:47:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id oDLCcy5HVCQO2KS2 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:47:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5307AD41.1000807@sandeen.net> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:47:13 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 46/55] xfs: Add xfs_log_rlimit.c References: <1378332359-14737-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1378332359-14737-47-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <5251A450.4000407@sandeen.net> <5252125B.2040300@sandeen.net> <5252BB9A.2040705@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <5252BB9A.2040705@sgi.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: Mark Tinguely Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 10/7/13, 8:48 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 10/06/13 20:46, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 10/6/13 12:56 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> On 9/4/13 5:05 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>>>> From: Jie Liu >>>>> >>>>> Add source files for xfs_log_rlimit.c The new file is used for log >>>>> size calculations and validation shared with userspace. >>>>> >>>>> [dchinner: xfs_log_calc_max_attrsetm_res() does not modify the >>>>> tr_attrsetm reservation, just calculates the maximum. ] >>>>> >>>>> [dchinner: rework loop in xfs_log_get_max_trans_res() ] >>>>> >>>>> [dchinner: implement xfs_log_calc_unit_res() in util.c to give mkfs >>>>> a worse case calculation of the log size needed. ] >>> 2 things: >>> >>> Ben, seems like your workflow lost the: >>> >>> From: Jie Liu >>> >>> at the top - in git, the author is listed as Dave in git. >>> >>> (Although those [parentheticals] were pretty fundamental changes, >>> something I just gave Rich a hard time for) ;) >>> >>> Also, this now breaks xfstest xfs/216 as a result of the mkfs changes. >>> What are the plans for that? >> >> Sorry, to be clear, it breaks that test (and others, pretty sure) >> because the log sizes for small filesystems are significantly bigger: >> >> -fssize=1g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=2560, version=2 >> +fssize=1g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=12800, version=2 >> >> -fssize=2g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=2560, version=2 >> +fssize=2g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=12800, version=2 >> >> -fssize=4g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=2560, version=2 >> +fssize=4g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=12800, version=2 >> >> -fssize=8g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=2560, version=2 >> +fssize=8g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=12800, version=2 >> >> -fssize=16g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=2560, version=2 >> +fssize=16g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=12800, version=2 >> >> -fssize=32g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=4096, version=2 >> +fssize=32g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=12800, version=2 >> >> -fssize=64g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=8192, version=2 >> +fssize=64g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=12800, version=2 >> >> fssize=128g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=16384, version=2 >> fssize=256g log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=32768, version=2 >> >> -Eric > > > Separate outputs for different versions of the OS version like we do for 16/32 bit tests' output? I'm not sure what we'd switch on.... Dave, a) was the change intentional (I think it was) and b) any suggestion for handling this test? -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs