On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 03:35:52AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> The xfs/157 doesn't need to do a "sized" mkfs, the image file is
> 500MiB, don't need to do _scratch_mkfs_sized with a 500MiB fssize
> argument, a general _scratch_mkfs is good enough.
>
> Besides that, if we do:
>
> MKFS_OPTIONS="-L oldlabel $MKFS_OPTIONS" _scratch_mkfs_sized $fs_size
>
> the _scratch_mkfs_sized trys to keep the $fs_size, when mkfs fails
> with incompatible $MKFS_OPTIONS options, likes this:
>
> ** mkfs failed with extra mkfs options added to "-L oldlabel -m rmapbt=1" by test 157 **
> ** attempting to mkfs using only test 157 options: -d size=524288000 -b size=4096 **
>
> But if we do:
>
> _scratch_mkfs -L oldlabel
>
> the _scratch_mkfs trys to keep the "-L oldlabel", when mkfs fails
> with incompatible $MKFS_OPTIONS options, likes this:
>
> ** mkfs failed with extra mkfs options added to "-m rmapbt=1" by test 157 **
> ** attempting to mkfs using only test 157 options: -L oldlabel **
>
> that's actually what we need.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> This test started to fail since 2f7e1b8a6f09 ("xfs/157,xfs/547,xfs/548: switch to
> using _scratch_mkfs_sized") was merged.
>
> FSTYP -- xfs (non-debug)
> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64
> MKFS_OPTIONS -- -f -m rmapbt=1 /dev/sda3
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/sda3 /mnt/scratch
>
> xfs/157 7s ... - output mismatch (see /root/git/xfstests/results//xfs/157.out.bad)
> --- tests/xfs/157.out 2024-11-01 01:05:03.664543576 +0800
> +++ /root/git/xfstests/results//xfs/157.out.bad 2024-11-01 02:56:47.994007900 +0800
> @@ -6,10 +6,10 @@
> label = "oldlabel"
> label = "newlabel"
> S3: Check that setting with rtdev works
> -label = "oldlabel"
> +label = ""
> label = "newlabel"
> S4: Check that setting with rtdev + logdev works
> ...
> (Run 'diff -u /root/git/xfstests/tests/xfs/157.out /root/git/xfstests/results//xfs/157.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
> Ran: xfs/157
> Failures: xfs/157
> Failed 1 of 1 tests
>
> Before that change, the _scratch_mkfs can drop "rmapbt=1" option from $MKFS_OPTIONS,
> only keep the "-L label" option. That's why this test never failed before.
>
> Now it fails on xfs, if MKFS_OPTIONS contains "-m rmapbt=1", the reason as I
> explained above.
>
> Thanks,
> Zorro
>
> tests/xfs/157 | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/157 b/tests/xfs/157
> index 9b5badbae..459c6de7c 100755
> --- a/tests/xfs/157
> +++ b/tests/xfs/157
> @@ -66,8 +66,7 @@ scenario() {
> }
>
> check_label() {
> - MKFS_OPTIONS="-L oldlabel $MKFS_OPTIONS" _scratch_mkfs_sized $fs_size \
> - >> $seqres.full
> + _scratch_mkfs -L oldlabel >> $seqres.full 2>&1
Hans Holmberg discovered that this mkfs fails if the SCRATCH_RTDEV is
very large and SCRATCH_DEV is set to the 500M fake_datafile because the
rtbitmap is larger than the datadev.
I wonder if there's a way to pass the -L argument through in the
"attempting to mkfs using only" case?
--D
> _scratch_xfs_db -c label
> _scratch_xfs_admin -L newlabel "$@" >> $seqres.full
> _scratch_xfs_db -c label
> --
> 2.45.2
>
>
