On 10/21/22 01:58, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote: > On Oct 19, 2022 / 19:18, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: >> On 10/19/22 07:19, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> On 10/19/22 1:16 AM, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: >>>> On 10/18/22 22:12, Yi Zhang wrote: >>>>> The new minimum size for the xfs log is 64MB which introudced from >>>>> xfsprogs v5.19.0, let's ignore it, or nvme/013 will be failed at: >>>>> >>>> >>>> instead of removing it set to 64MB ? >>> >>> What is the advantage of hard-coding any log size? By doing so you are >>> overriding mkfs's own best-practice heuristics, and you might run into >>> other failures in the future. >>> >>> Is there a reason to not just use the defaults? >>> >> >> I think the point here to use the minimal XFS setup. >> >> Does default size is minimal ? or at least we should document >> what the size it is. > > As far as I read `man mkfs.xfs`, it is not minimal. It changes depending on the > filesystem size. > > To have minimal XFS setup, do we need to care other parameters than log size? > I'm looking at 'man mkfs.xfs' and it mentions data section size and some other > size related options. > > Two more questions have come up in my mind: > > - Did we have nvme driver or block layer issues related to xfs log size in the > past? If so, it is reasonable to specify it. > I think creating a minimal setup is a part of the testcase and we should not change it, unless there is a explicit reason for doing so. > - When we see failures of xfs user test cases (nvme/012,013,035), is xfs log > size useful to debug? > I hope so .. -ck
