Re: [LTP] [PATCH 0/3] LTP random fixes for xfs and btrfs

David Sterba
2024-12-03T16:22:46Z

On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 08:25:19PM +1030, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> 在 2024/12/1 20:06, Zorro Lang 写道:
> > [PATCH 1/3] ioctl_ficlone02.c: set all_filesystems to zero
> >
> > It doesn't skip filesystems as its plan, fix it.
> >
> > [PATCH 2/3] stat04+lstat03: fix bad blocksize mkfs option for xfs
> >
> > mkfs.xfs doesn't support "-b 1024", needs "-b size=1024"
> >
> > [PATCH 3/3] stat04+lstat03: skip test on btrfs
> >
> > The "-b" option of mkfs.btrfs isn't a blocksize option, there's not blocksize
> > option in mkfs.btrfs. So I'd like to skip this test for btrfs. But I'm not
> > sure if there's better way, so CC *btrfs list* to get more review points for
> > that.
> > (BTW, better to have a common helper to deal with different filesystems'
> > blocksize options in the future)
> >
>
> Well, I'd say Wilcox is kinda correct here.
>
> Btrfs uses the name "sector size" to indicate the minimal unit, aka, the
> blocksize of all the other fses.
>
> Not sure if we will even rename the whole sector size to block size in
> the future, it looks like a huge work to do.

Well, I think we can at least add an alias blocksize to sectorsize to
mkfs. We don't have a time machine to change the initial confusing
naming, but can slightly improve the user convenience. Internally in
the code we can keep sectorsize or incrementally rename it to blocksize.
What matters more here is the user intrface, i.e. the mkfs options.