On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 09:52:39AM +0100, Pankaj Raghav wrote: > On 23/01/2024 01:25, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:17:49PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: > >> From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Some tests need to be adapted to for LBS[1] based on the filesystem > >> blocksize. These are generic changes where it uses the filesystem > >> blocksize instead of assuming it. > >> > >> There are some more generic test cases that are failing due to logdev > >> size requirement that changes with filesystem blocksize. I will address > >> them in a separate series. > >> > >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230915183848.1018717-1-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >> > >> Pankaj Raghav (2): > >> xfs/558: scale blk IO size based on the filesystem blksz > >> xfs/161: adapt the test case for LBS filesystem > > > > Do either of these fail and require fixing for a 64k page size > > system running 64kB block size? > > > > i.e. are these actual 64kB block size issues, or just issues with > > the LBS patchset? > > > > I had the same question in mind. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any 64k Page size > machine at the moment. I will ask around if I can get access to it. > > @Zorro I saw you posted a test report for 64k blocksize. Is it possible for you to > see if these test cases(xfs/161, xfs/558) work in your setup with 64k block size? Sure, I'll reserve one ppc64le and give it a try. But I remember there're more failed cases on 64k blocksize xfs. Thanks, Zorro > > CCing Ritesh as I saw him post a patch to fix a testcase for 64k block size. >
