Re: [LTP] [PATCH] zram: skip exfat on systems with large page size

[Li Wang via ltp <ltp@lists.linux.it>]

Thanks for the explanation.

I still think we should go with the -c approach rather than skipping.
A couple of points:

On 1, I don't think this changes the scope of the test. zram01 already
invokes mkfs.$fs as a means to exercise zram, adjusting a parameter so
that mkfs actually succeeds is just making the test work, not turning
it into a filesystem configuration test.

On 2, 25MB with a 64KB cluster size gives roughly 390 clusters, which
is well within exfat's limits. Could you point out a concrete constraint
that would actually fail here? If there isn't one, I'd prefer not to
use a hypothetical concern as justification for skipping.

On the TCONF, reporting TCONF here would make it look like exfat on
zram is fundamentally broken on 64K-page systems, when in reality it
works with a one-line change. That is a false negative we should
avoid in a test suite.

Please send a v2 with the -c approach.

On Fri, Apr 03, 2026 at 04:59:47PM +0000, Soma Das wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2026 at 09:47:33AM +0800, Li Wang wrote:
> > Or, can we specify the sector size with 'mkfs.$fs -c $page_size'
> > when detecting a large pagesize system?
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> Using mkfs.exfat -c $page_size would technically work, but I avoided
> it because:
> 
> 1. zram01 tests zram behaviour, not filesystem configuration -- using
>    a non-default cluster size feels out of scope.
> 2. The cluster size must be valid for the disk size (only 25MB here),
>    so large cluster sizes could hit additional constraints.
> 
> Skipping with TCONF honestly reflects that default exfat tooling does
> not support this hardware configuration, which is useful signal.
> 
> Happy to send a v2 with the -c approach if you prefer.
> 
> Thanks,
> Soma
> 

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang


-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp