Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 03:06:32PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> The test currently assumes a file system block size of 4k. It will
>> work just fine on any user-specified block size, though.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> tests/xfs/300 | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/xfs/300 b/tests/xfs/300
>> index 28608b81..4f1c927a 100755
>> --- a/tests/xfs/300
>> +++ b/tests/xfs/300
>> @@ -50,8 +50,9 @@ $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "pwrite -S 0x63 0 4096" $SCRATCH_MNT/attrvals >> $seqres.full
>> cat $SCRATCH_MNT/attrvals | attr -s name $SCRATCH_MNT/$seq.test >> $seqres.full 2>&1
>>
>> # Fragment the file by writing backwards
>> +bs=$(_get_file_block_size $SCRATCH_MNT)
>> for I in `seq 6 -1 0`; do
>> - dd if=/dev/zero of=$SCRATCH_MNT/$seq.test seek=$I bs=4k \
>> + dd if=/dev/zero of=$SCRATCH_MNT/$seq.test seek=$I bs=${bs} \
>
> Although the original case won't fail on 64k test. But this change makes
> more sense.
It will fail for the case mentioned in the cover letter. That is:
MKFS_OPTIONS="-m reflink=0 -b size=65536" MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o dax"
on a system with >4k page size (xfs, in this case).
Thanks,
Jeff
