Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. > Please share the lists of failed testcases with 64k bs xfs (if you have it handy). IIRC, many of them could be due to 64k bs itself, but yes, I can take a look and work on those. Thanks! -ritesh
