From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:38:01 +0200
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] [RFC] zram01: Fix on ppc64le
In-Reply-To: <420182872.1608763.1502797492172.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
References: <1485870273-26990-1-git-send-email-chrubis@suse.cz>
 <20170815092326.GA20715@rei.lan>
 <420182872.1608763.1502797492172.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20170815123801.GD20715@rei.lan>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it

Hi!
> > Looks like we went off-topic and the zram01.sh test wasn't fixed in the
> > end and it still fails on ppc64le.
> > 
> > I guess I can prepare a patch that checks if there is enough free RAM
> > for a minimal Btrfs fs but I would still like to obtain the minimal size
> > from mkfs.btrfs. Does that sound reasonable?
> 
> Do you mean these messages from mkfs.btrfs:
>   "ERROR: minimum size for each btrfs device is 41943040"
> or some other way to find minimal supported size?

Do do not know other way that the one used in the original patch, i.e.
running mkfs.btrfs on /dev/null and parsing the output.

Or is there something better than that?

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz