From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213BDECAAD4 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 00:18:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229899AbiHaASj (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:18:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56486 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229778AbiHaASe (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:18:34 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 360A09DB66; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 17:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id v4so12095570pgi.10; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 17:18:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=xH0M4e5esAqM96Nf2Fl2I1Tb8x4y2NZChmoD48mDk/E=; b=JbBU0u/2yskA2qh5lu9jRik+XHMhYPIDYY65Pny/EofY+Oi3Q9Lm2wwtWXCn3rMP9S F4XmBabno2YHSmclQxN4VUVXExD4+SIuWT4ey1mhli6l50ZbdYlKKIj6NsYu2DqNd09t S+zx2aYS+WEHvO8t/knjT/O+gfnQJXilTfaK4TH61TtGWs2RSuKB2wYQTMWGN9MagqAV hdspsS0ZwARSSTNYTbso7B8xhgPzeKipPu7NhEN63Gclx9tHAfPRf47o9i19p2kk9hRN FfU5iZ5HgqcRKrUxjRVyhulGjk+lOO80pedj+D/dzR7ji8Iji+/s18VzFpedZEfTPLs4 xJMw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=xH0M4e5esAqM96Nf2Fl2I1Tb8x4y2NZChmoD48mDk/E=; b=Fa+b6SOnO9ewx80bi4iB3BsbR5UnnVzA+4upH1ZVS5Pwj9kCsnMDsZyBezCIBsiCHt /ImDF8v7IKFrKjZCSf+m8WqyoNkTfCeGdTMz9lhD9qCAzF76VyDdTQpmL3PK8OWKtH1k GCXCwSogPG3NPo3kcK5p61tDXpI4h+e1GU/3v5QKUIepC66ZBkWThIY1i0yCYM7Ve1SY VpFpGnUh5ndc6MxoxcZX88PnnfFF92syXseXSOaNZE63npoYqW2k4xsASdinXBR+mXt9 bZf9oL7qhlFRnWAt8bY/8wYWe57fCf01lYQWHe/Ejgt+1TvyHs+cRRqUdsXWOi9YFPag QL+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo06MRjcqxRQiEcoj8QocZ6198l+e9P+6RryYEfZDnZyVFgh6jrn WMhOSkYimjvD2YoMidqI4rqTa25AKn6Lb31drhQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4rubVNgj1JqK5JCzl2eJ7WlOwSsp92tDt+048P8vka/r9o//ORfL9nctaQ/jeEYicMCv9tVLzPCuylwTlP208= X-Received: by 2002:a63:4e25:0:b0:41c:62a2:ecc3 with SMTP id c37-20020a634e25000000b0041c62a2ecc3mr20162396pgb.596.1661905109991; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 17:18:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220830044433.1719246-1-jencce.kernel@gmail.com> <20220830044433.1719246-2-jencce.kernel@gmail.com> <20220830073634.7qklqvl2la53kbv4@zlang-mailbox> <20220830190748.nnylphtuugxxmoy3@zlang-mailbox> In-Reply-To: <20220830190748.nnylphtuugxxmoy3@zlang-mailbox> From: Murphy Zhou Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 08:18:18 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] tests: increase fs size for mkfs To: Zorro Lang Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , fstests , linux-xfs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:07 AM Zorro Lang wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 07:46:40AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:36:34PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 12:44:30PM +0800, Murphy Zhou wrote: > > > > Since this xfsprogs commit: > > > > 6e0ed3d19c54 mkfs: stop allowing tiny filesystems > > > > XFS requires filesystem size bigger then 300m. > > > > > > I'm wondering if we can just use 300M, or 512M is better. CC linux-xfs to > > > get more discussion about how to deal with this change on mkfs.xfs. > > > > > > > > > > > Increase thoese numbers to 512M at least. There is no special > > > > reason for the magic number 512, just double it from original > > > > 256M and being reasonable small. > > > > > > Hmm... do we need a global parameter to define the minimal XFS size, > > > or even minimal local fs size? e.g. MIN_XFS_SIZE, or MIN_FS_SIZE ... > > > > I think it would be a convenient time to create a helper to capture > > that, seeing as the LTP developers recently let slip that they have such > > a thing somewhere, and min fs size logic is scattered around fstests. > > It's a little hard to find out all cases which use the minimal fs size. > But for xfs, I think we can do that with this chance. We can have: > > export XFS_MIN_SIZE=$((300 * 1024 * 1024)) > export XFS_MIN_LOG_SIZE=$((64 * 1024 * 1024)) > > at first, then init minimal $FSTYP size likes: > > init_min_fs_size() > { > case $FSTYP in > xfs) > FS_MIN_SIZE=$XFS_MIN_SIZE > ;; > *) > FS_MIN_SIZE="unlimited" # or a big enough size?? > ;; > esac > } > > Then other fs can follow this to add their size limitation. > Any better ideas? In generic/042 f2fs has a similar kind of limitation. Let me check how LTP guys handle this. Thanks, Murphy > > Thanks, > Zorro > > > > snipped >