On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 04:44:36PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:28:58AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 03:05:48PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. So we can have a small `if` conditional block for xfs > > > > > to have fs size = 500M in generic test cases. > > > > > > > > I'd suggest creating a helper where you pass in the fs size you want and > > > > it rounds that up to the minimum value. That would then get passed to > > > > _scratch_mkfs_sized or _scsi_debug_get_dev. > > > > > > > > (testing this as we speak...) > > > > > > I would be more than happy if you send a patch for > > > this but I also know you are pretty busy, so let me know if you want me > > > to send a patch for this issue. > > > > > > You had something like this in mind? > > > > Close, but something more like below. It's not exhaustive; it merely > > makes the xfs 64k bs tests pass: > > > > I still see some errors in generic/081 and generic/108 that have been > modified in your patch with the same issue. > > This is the mkfs option I am using: > -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1, -i sparse=1, -b size=64k > > And with that: > $ ./check -s 64k generic/042 generic/081 generic/108 generic/704 generic/730 generic/731 xfs/279 > > ... > generic/081.out.bad: > +max log size 1732 smaller than min log size 2028, filesystem is too small > ... > generic/108.out.bad: > +max log size 1876 smaller than min log size 2028, filesystem is too small > ... > SECTION -- 64k > ========================= > Ran: generic/042 generic/081 generic/108 generic/704 generic/730 generic/731 xfs/279 > Failures: generic/081 generic/108 > Failed 2 of 7 tests > > **Increasing the size** to 600M fixes all the test in 64k system. Huh. Can you send me the mkfs output (or xfs_info after the fact) so I can compare your setup with mine? I'm curious about what's affecting the layout here -- maybe you have -s size=4k or something? (I don't want to stray too far from the /actual/ mkfs minimum fs size of 300M.) --D > > The patch itself including `_small_fs_size_mb()` looks good to me. > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: [PATCH] misc: fix test that fail formatting with 64k blocksize > > > > There's a bunch of tests that fail the formatting step when the test run > > is configured to use XFS with a 64k blocksize. This happens because XFS > > doesn't really support that combination due to minimum log size > > constraints. Fix the test to format larger devices in that case. > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > common/rc | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/generic/042 | 9 +-------- > > tests/generic/081 | 7 +++++-- > > tests/generic/108 | 6 ++++-- > > tests/generic/704 | 3 ++- > > tests/generic/730 | 3 ++- > > tests/generic/731 | 3 ++- > > tests/xfs/279 | 7 ++++--- > > As I indicated at the start of the thread, we need to also fix: > generic/455 generic/457 generic/482 shared/298 > > Thanks! > -- > Pankaj Raghav >
