On Sun, Aug 01, 2021 at 07:41:09PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:37:34AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:15:27AM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote: > > > On 26 Jul 2021 at 22:49, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 12:13:13PM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote: > > > >> _scratch_do_mkfs constructs a mkfs command line by concatenating the values of > > > >> 1. $mkfs_cmd > > > >> 2. $MKFS_OPTIONS > > > >> 3. $extra_mkfs_options > > > >> > > > >> The corresponding mkfs command line fails if $MKFS_OPTIONS enables either > > > >> reflink or rmapbt feature. The failure occurs because the test tries to create > > > >> a filesystem with realtime device enabled. In such a case, _scratch_do_mkfs() > > > >> will construct and invoke an mkfs command line without including the value of > > > >> $MKFS_OPTIONS. > > > >> > > > >> To prevent such silent failures, this commit causes the test to exit if it > > > >> detects either reflink or rmapbt feature being enabled. > > > > > > > > Er, what combinations of mkfs.xfs and MKFS_OPTIONS cause this result? > > > > What kind of fs configuration comes out of that? > > > > > > With MKFS_OPTIONS set as shown below, > > > > > > export MKFS_OPTIONS="-m reflink=1 -b size=1k" > > > > > > _scratch_do_mkfs() invokes mkfs.xfs with both realtime and reflink options > > > enabled. Such an invocation of mkfs.xfs fails causing _scratch_do_mkfs() to > > > ignore the contents of $MKFS_OPTIONS while constructing and invoking mkfs.xfs > > > once again. > > > > > > This time, the fs block size will however be set to 4k (the default block > > > size). At the beginning of the test we would have obtained the block size of > > > the filesystem as 1k and used it to compute the size of the realtime device > > > required to overflow realtime bitmap inode's max pseudo extent count. > > > > > > Invocation of xfs_growfs (made later in the test) ends up succeeding since a > > > 4k fs block can accommodate more bits than a 1k fs block. > > > > OK, now I think I've finally put all the pieces together. Both of these > > patches are fixing weirdness when MKFS_OPTIONS="-m reflink=1 -b size=1k". > > > > With current HEAD, we try to mkfs.xfs with double "-b size" arguments. > > That fails with 'option respecified', so fstests tries again without > > MKFS_OPTIONS, which means you don't get the filesystem that you want. > > If, say, MKFS_OPTIONS also contained bigtime=1, you won't get a bigtime > > filesystem. > > > > So the first patch removes the double -bsize arguments. But you still > > have the problem that the reflink=1 in MKFS_OPTIONS still causes > > mkfs.xfs to fail (because we don't do rt and reflink yet), so fstests > > again drops MKFS_OPTIONS, and now you're testing the fs without a block > > size option at all. The test still regresses because the special rt > > geometry depends on the blocksize, and we didn't get all the geometry > > elements that we need to trip the growfs failure. > > > > Does the following patch fix all that for you? > > Do you have plan to post formal patch? I think both problems could be > fixed in one patch like you did. I'll leave patch 1 for now. Ah, I saw the patch now, thanks! Eryu
