On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:53:24AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 04:05:40PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > > "The DAX code currently only supports files with a block size equal to your > > kernel's PAGE_SIZE" [1], so I suppose any cases with smaller blocksize (< pagesize) > > should "_exclude_scratch_mount_option dax". > > > > And if this supposition is right, we'd better do "skipping dax testing if blocksize > > is less than pagesize" in a common helper. Good news is we have _scratch_mkfs_blocksized. > > So how about do: > > if [ $blocksize < $pagesize ];then > > _exclude_scratch_mount_option dax > > fi > > in _scratch_mkfs_blocksized? then let ext4/054 and ext4/055 turn to use _scratch_mkfs_blocksized. > > That's a good thing to and it would work for ext4/054 and ext/022 > (which already uses "_exclude_scratch_mount_option dax" and > "_scratch_mkfs"). However, a number of other tests, including > ext4/055 and ext4/035 need to give additional parameters to mfks, such > as "-O quota" or "-E resize=262144". > > So _scratch_mkfs_blocksized isn't always going to work for tests in > ext4/* where we often are passing ext4-specific mkfs options to > mkfs.ext4. > > So I can add your suggestion to _scratch_mkfs_blocksized, and use that > for ext4/054, but it's not going to be a solution for ext4/055. I just noticed that _scratch_mkfs_sized() and _scratch_mkfs_blocksized() both use _scratch_mkfs_xfs for XFS, I'm wondering if ext4 would like to use _scratch_mkfs_ext4() or even use _scratch_mkfs() directly in these two functions. Then you can do something likes: MKFS_OPTIONS="$MKFS_OPTIONS -F -O quota" _scratch_mkfs_blocksized 1024 or: MKFS_OPTIONS="$MKFS_OPTIONS -F -O quota" _scratch_mkfs_blocksized 1024 Hmm... that might look a little ugly... it's doesn't matter if we write as: _exclude_scratch_mount_option dax _scratch_mkfs "-F -O quota -b 1024" We just provide a helper to avoid someone forget 'dax', I don't object someone would like to "exclude dax" by explicit method :) So if you don't have much time to do this change, you can just do what you said above, then I'll take another time/chance to change _scratch_mkfs_* things. Maybe we should think about let all _scratch_mkfs_*[1] helpers use _scratch_mkfs consistently. But that will change and affect too many things. I don't want to break fundamental code too much, might be better to let each fs help to change and test that bit by bit, when they need :) Thanks, Zorro $ grep -rs _scratch_mkfs_.*() common/ common/casefold:_scratch_mkfs_casefold() common/casefold:_scratch_mkfs_casefold_strict() common/encrypt:_scratch_mkfs_encrypted() common/encrypt:_scratch_mkfs_sized_encrypted() common/encrypt:_scratch_mkfs_stable_inodes_encrypted() common/verity:_scratch_mkfs_verity() common/verity:_scratch_mkfs_encrypted_verity() common/rc:_scratch_mkfs_options() common/rc:_scratch_mkfs_sized() common/rc:_scratch_mkfs_geom() common/rc:_scratch_mkfs_blocksized() common/rc:_scratch_mkfs_richacl() > > Cheers, > > - Ted >
