Hi Dave, any further comments on this? On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:29:49 -0400 Dwight Engen <dwight.engen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:33:41 +1100 > Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 07:12:59PM -0400, Dwight Engen wrote: > > > This test was failing on sparc64 because there is a minimum > > > granularity of PAGE_CACHE_SIZE in > > > xfs_vnodeops.c:xfs_zero_file_space(). This change follows the > > > approach taken in xfs/194 to filter the bmap output to be in terms > > > of "blocksize" which is computed from pagesize. > > > > xfs/194 existed long before xfs/242, so it's not necessarily the > > best example to follow. You've missed various things that make the > > special hackery xfs/194 does to make it work. e.g. clearing > > mkfs/mount options. Your change doesn't do this, so it will make it > > fail on CRC enable XFS filesystems because 4k / 8 = 512 bytes and > > that's smaller than the minimum block size support on CRC enabled > > XFS filesystems. > > Hi Dave, I sure did miss that 194 was doing unset MKFS_OPTIONS. Partly > because running check '*/194' outputs: > > MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -bsize=4096 /dev/vdiskd > > but this is only for the mkfs that check itself does, and as you note > 194 will redo the mkfs with its computed block size. Thats a bit > confusing :( 242 doesn't do a second mkfs, so there isn't really a > need to unset MKFS_OPTIONS. > > What I thought 194 was doing, and what I made 242 do was to be page > size independent by computing the size of things and filtering the > output to be in units of some factor of a page size, which is why I > put blksize in quotes, its not the actual block size (ie we don't > pass it to mkfs). Maybe I should have used a different name for less > confusion, suggestions welcome. Doing this does make it so 242 passes > with no MKFS_OPTIONS (which will be 4k blocksize) or with > MKFS_OPTIONS="-b size=8k", and both of those with -m crc=1 also. > > > > _test_generic_punch is modified to optionally take multiple as an > > > argument, so the file under test will be twice the size on an 8k > > > machine as a 4k machine. Since the files will be different sizes, > > > we can no longer use md5sum so od -x is used instead with the byte > > > offsets converted to "blocksize" offsets. > > > > Brian posted patches yesterday on the XFS list to fix zero range > > problems, and they remove the page size rounding from > > xfs_zero_file_space(). Hence this strange corner case behaviour is > > likely to go away real soon, and so I don't think we should change > > the test to work around it now... > > That sounds good, but I'd think we want 242 to be able to pass > regardless of page size on 3.12-3.17 too? > > > Would would be much more useful for you to do would with a platform > > like sparc64 is use it to test MKFS_OPTION="-b size=8k" and make all > > these extent-map-output dependent tests work properly with >4k block > > size filesystems. ;) > > This does do that for 242 :) I can look at the others also if the > approach here is okay. Thanks. > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave. > > -- > 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 -- 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
