On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 06:16:26PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 09:37:53PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 09:26:06AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 12:11:07AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 12:12:42AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > > +if [ $FSTYP = "xfs" ]; then > > > > > + _scratch_mkfs "-l size=256m" >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > > > > +else > > > > > + _scratch_mkfs >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > > > > +fi > > > > > > > > We really need to document why generic tests have file system specific > > > > hacks. And yes, that's a request for Dave who originally added it > > > > without any explanation and not Ted. > > > > > > Creating and then unlinking 50000 files is journal space bound > > > when using default 64MB logs on small test filesystems. Increasing > > > the journal size to 256MB halved the runtime of this test. > > > > Please explain this in thet test. And you probably also want to > > ensure that you don't force the log smaller than 256 either, otherwise > > people in 10 or 20 years will wonder why this test forces logs to > > be so small. > > I'll help to add this comment when I merge this patch, if Dave hope to > keep "-l size=256m" for xfs. What happens if someone runs fstests with a 128M external log device? Is this one of those cases where _scratch_mkfs notices the mkfs failure and formats without MKFS_OPTIONS? And if that's true, what about my test configs that set MKFS_OPTIONS to test new non-default features? --D > Thanks, > Zorro > > > > >
