On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:22:54AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 03:49:41PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 05:33:47PM +0100, Jan Tulak wrote: > > > The removed 'do_mkfs_pass -l size=4096b' was against man page > > > (-b section). Other entries are things that weren't covered before. > > > > > > Specifically, a standalone "-l size=4096b" should fail, because: > > > To specify any options on the command line in units of filesys‐ > > > tem blocks, this option must be specified first so that the > > > filesystem block size is applied consistently to all options. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This looks fine to me. But I'd like some reviews from xfs developers > > too. (cc'd linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx). > > > > So has mkfs been fixed to cause '-l size=4096b' to fail? I'm not sure we > should cause the test to fail until/unless the mkfs behavior is fixed > up. I agreed, we don't want to update existing test and introduce false regressions. This is one of the reasons I want more reviews on this patch :) Thanks, Eryu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
