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 picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E28AC433FE for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 09:05:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40E3F3CA746 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:05:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (in-2.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA6103C0B82 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:04:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3A8060220E for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:04:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20C6A1F747; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 09:04:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1664528697; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=3+8k/YoQhQ36scsTZQ6EtgPeBC3TMGV11mJRw8nQfd8=; b=Gph3VcoJLoRlCyUoR03ytzIPGF7w4cRNfxm6CJLvE2085KzJwxiyDMSejgFfq+8MtwV6gz 74VGefYpaSN/kSTVQS7Ty9hp/+P8ZIyKa6oeHm1l/QEtY2KjB1ncvhah0AcyHukLBNUsVY S5l1vqBsC0cnk0pNvqYwUiE6GaiTQ3c= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1664528697; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=3+8k/YoQhQ36scsTZQ6EtgPeBC3TMGV11mJRw8nQfd8=; b=pUn2pVw3PsKUU4X2mnaci/QY74iMxFHkF0a992UYHfffzrYb2nnnCQ+Ee/eTs1D1GgsNcr OhCuT8XrOx+9PiBw== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB45213776; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 09:04:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id plGdLzixNmPuUwAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Fri, 30 Sep 2022 09:04:56 +0000 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:04:54 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: References: <20220929192047.22125-1-pvorel@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-2.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] zram01.sh: Fix minimal size for XFS on kernel 5.19 X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > Hi! > > mkfs.xfs for kernel 5.19 bumps minimum filesystems 300 MB. Due this we > > already updated minimal filesystem size for all_filesystems / > > $TST_ALL_FILESYSTEMS in 66e05c841. But zram01.sh does not use the API, > > thus update it now. > > Check for RAM size was added for f18c8fd3a for Btrfs on ppc64le due to > > larger page size. Hopefully this is not needed. > Looks to me like that check is there to make sure we have enough RAM to > run the system and create the filesystem at the same time. > It does check if we have more than 1G of memory, which seems sensible > if we are going to allocate ~300MB for a RAM based filesystem. > I would say that we should really do the same for xfs, i.e. rename the > check_space_for_brtfs to check_space_for_fs and pass the fs in the first > argument so that it can appear in the tst_res message. I understood the concern, just wasn't sure if it were Btrfs specific. Makes sense to use this for XFS, I'll send v2 shortly. Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp