On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 04:54:15PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: > User takes care about specifying mkfs options he wishes to test and the > test itself should not change it if it's not strictly necessary for the > test itself. > > In this case it is not necessary and we should only test configuration > provided by the user. Moreover if the block size was already specified > some mkfs utilities does not handle multiple of the same parameters and > the mkfs utility fails making it re-try with only provided options > (ignoring what user specified), which is wrong. I disagree strongly with this justification. The test is perfectly fine: it is allowed to do whatever it wants with mkfs and mount options. It is up to the implementations of the specific FSTYP mkfs implementation called from _scratch_mkfs to handle conflicting/unsupported options sanely, not the test.... > In this case it's also a problem for btrfs file system which does not > support block size < page size. i.e. _scratch_mkfs_btrfs needs to either filter that out or _fail/_not_run the test if it can't.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
