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 E96DEECAAA1 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 01:54:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231799AbiHaByT (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2022 21:54:19 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58944 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231620AbiHaByN (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2022 21:54:13 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com (mail-pj1-x1030.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CFF2B2854; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 18:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id u9-20020a17090a1f0900b001fde6477464so6590233pja.4; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 18:54:07 -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=8zMEcOSvN6yaNSQQmvY6Gpxsx8iQRLMImtSa6KDNgVs=; b=g+J4rHJIOkxA6KlQOPkvng8bCnxK+Pj8yKi7bfElyIdJGeeTcdeDXW40RQ7skjPoFZ vJ3cO54ySjAsbrr+3IiiXwup9+01ZSwfnQZlMvnZ74abwLcqdElUCdlQxdYfWlAZWqBF 1t7eQgdT8he/R82szEzPFAlu7V/yC4AA1+bHXQcw7trV79KMhTQk+6GiBZYrCwNYPIFh JQB172ouafu+OR6XBWWtWCOUWZkfWP/EbAlLQPo0r1j3CSa0t66QPwunDPFQ9e7IpKrI JXTgZSPBefb7fcTGV1IY2Fa+2nNpqLnCNnNWS+N9hZ86T6frTT0XsxEwxb8/V3ga4lkc vxcg== 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=8zMEcOSvN6yaNSQQmvY6Gpxsx8iQRLMImtSa6KDNgVs=; b=ybGb52fth3U0Vo+Q8QhcxlGDcY0CaZnVmEPbMRTucQ/mlw1iUasX6pCEmxKHfiUJGj qzG65zeQgjMEyo1/6rviZr7eLK6laSPJpA3+DAlsLOpBJzwfa/j2F0lCFfEsAeYI709A 2BOD6zKh8EkPAhYG565j3rXk3Fo5oVo8dNlslNwqzZ9x5zLUbcNek7RqhjdHH7kN5erp Uyr2MVYJg59tccIlK0bFirZNZ08ri1tOscgKoM5SYWm8/eu4HaO749ERC4Ils8Ws/qw0 mw5pnEGT1ioI1CLSkeZhYzH0t2dHBMtY71FASoY8h9b1SYIvTPemAeieVJFPclav6oky d3hA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2Di1oJCuqV3l1/sBj15PDFo1EsfmBlWvSn7XflsFRjUlOH0aCp evq6UftdPjTeaWBPhQO1NRjAIEbmzcBOx5SVdSP7XdYhkcM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4lhgI0C/EZ6MeuTTLqsDrOPyll8MBG7Ybwmhs2f7MdQulTf3nOwwukHy0QHxDGjjduDj6krYOAYOtrxLICuDk= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8503:b0:173:368b:dce3 with SMTP id bj3-20020a170902850300b00173368bdce3mr23848556plb.104.1661910847078; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 18:54:07 -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: From: Murphy Zhou Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 09:53:55 +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 Oops.. Darrick left a workaround in the xfsprogs code for fstests. My test setup missed TEST_DEV export somehow and the workaround was not working. Nevermind for this patchset.. My bloody hours... On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 8:18 AM Murphy Zhou wrote: > > 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 > >