On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:50:16PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Yeah, it's a bit of a mess. It's not been an issue for ext4 because > mkfs.ext4 allows options specified later in the command-line to > override earlier ones. At least in my case it's not really by overriding. E.g. if I force an allocation group (or block group in extN terms) to a specific size and then want a log that is larger than that, changing the AG size is generally a bad idea, and a clear warning to the user is simply the better interface. > There's a third possibility, which is sometimes the test might > explicitly want the mkfs options to be merged together. For example, > in the ext4/4k configuration we have "-b 4096", while the ext4/1k > confiuration option we might have "-b 1024". And we might want to > have that *combined* with a test which is enabling fscrypt feature, so > we can test fscrypt with a 4k block size, as well as fsvrypt with a 1k > blocksize. > > That being said, that doesn't always make sense, and sometimes the > combination doesn't make any sense. Merging the options is what we're currently doing, and it works ok most of the time. The question is what to do when it doesn't.
