Re: [PATCH 0/2] fstest changes for LBS

[Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>]

Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 09:52:39AM +0100, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
>> On 23/01/2024 01:25, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:17:49PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
>> >> From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
>> >>
>> >> Some tests need to be adapted to for LBS[1] based on the filesystem
>> >> blocksize. These are generic changes where it uses the filesystem
>> >> blocksize instead of assuming it.
>> >>
>> >> There are some more generic test cases that are failing due to logdev
>> >> size requirement that changes with filesystem blocksize. I will address
>> >> them in a separate series.
>> >>
>> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230915183848.1018717-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com/
>> >>
>> >> Pankaj Raghav (2):
>> >>   xfs/558: scale blk IO size based on the filesystem blksz
>> >>   xfs/161: adapt the test case for LBS filesystem
>> > 
>> > Do either of these fail and require fixing for a 64k page size
>> > system running 64kB block size?
>> > 
>> > i.e. are these actual 64kB block size issues, or just issues with
>> > the LBS patchset?
>> > 
>> 
>> I had the same question in mind. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any 64k Page size
>> machine at the moment. I will ask around if I can get access to it.
>> 
>> @Zorro I saw you posted a test report for 64k blocksize. Is it possible for you to
>> see if these test cases(xfs/161, xfs/558) work in your setup with 64k block size?
>
> Sure, I'll reserve one ppc64le and give it a try. But I remember there're more failed
> cases on 64k blocksize xfs.
>

Please share the lists of failed testcases with 64k bs xfs (if you have it handy).
IIRC, many of them could be due to 64k bs itself, but yes, I can take a look and work on those.

Thanks!
-ritesh