From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (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 34A671EB9FF; Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:16:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753172181; cv=none; b=dVcqmZ+Dh/equVoUTAdthCSduOGyiM0fl4pGvS0sO54k8IW+HNSYAH0gMhNqbrsxIt2tPLskxSUK2W80B4tjNbhQfUTAEr9tV3rBi/tv4ezdKK1N/EqO7ap1x0AIa79KyASXgfGafApBXYWgzB+zpMujHi+5A3UEo6OefY60Wp8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753172181; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QH9N8xGLNGpk2Srk8msJhdqgUd/p4bty86Z/5jwVq+A=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=jHv6JAO/OD6R5mQ9pl1jsQ1ynaOZiaDYf2nXwFZFZpK1Hk+DyXvUPnd86dTSLtYqh8M7vVCi5Z4u3C6aMOJ5VnV+AJfwBZPRUicTDLxnnCIvHg70DwS8hIuYu6bSvmgVGbezyULv5ZMfsK88x+kMaz9VS7+a/J7F7UWeeNz7w+Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=rN87E8E8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="rN87E8E8" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=w7SDQNCqmEtC4WzvVvc28QG/QoNPCtOImKQljNjeG4U=; b=rN87E8E8oOwUK+imBtBPMU0t/f YvEmeawneYojFChEQEVKmnbcS3T8SJx62Y4+bjgz9YO9lOjMVvlFvl9G+Ni0KFzMDxMAbWMaC2MAn TJDHkjB9QO2fmhz5MApAIslzofjy1BXtjf5qfEyEYJlGN2iLjtBcWdrL6N56ggR4/hlOAyiDfa55n B7wJwqYLxXlMGPS9Wwy/K8BOdUOfD24lUiUJYmdoUzluZjbrTFXkJewClewtOeJ9VmP/whcPTuCVl UBMjGMDoClHVwPRLZmoi1TILVQKXDMCADNCSS13PoY0BXf85f/QC7jClZ64+QQRmkbSpPtGHEJoEP bLOkgSaQ==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ue8Ad-00000001mzX-3QNF; Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:16:19 +0000 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 01:16:19 -0700 From: "hch@infradead.org" To: Johannes Thumshirn Cc: "hch@infradead.org" , "fdmanana@kernel.org" , "fstests@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" , Filipe Manana , "linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org" , Naohiro Aota Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] generic: test overwriting file with mmap on a full filesystem Message-ID: References: <681c9dcaca0bf16a694d8f56449618001cf20df6.1752166696.git.fdmanana@suse.com> 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: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 07:50:48AM +0000, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On 22.07.25 08:56, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I just noticed this test failing on zoned xfs in current for-next. > > > > That's because for out of place overwrite file systems writing at > > ENOSPC will obviously fail, and I think the test acknowledges that > > by forcing nocow for btrfs. > > > > But that leaves "real" out of place write file systems affected, which > > should also include zone btrfs, but the test actually fails there > > in mkfs already due to some reason. > > It probably fails the _try_scratch_mkfs_sized() call because that goes > into _check_minimal_fs_size() and that should _notrun if $fssize < > $MIN_FSSIZE. Btw, it would be really helpful to improve the test coverage if btrfs did the same adjustment for the nimimum size as zone xfs, where mkfs run up the requested size to the zone size and then adds the required extra zones that don't show up in the user capacity. That way all the small size based tests just work.