On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 :) > I forgot to mention that this patch is a complement to my patchset for mkfs.xfs. So yes, do not merge it now, it looks like the set won't get merged yet. Sorry for not stating it in the description. Jan -- Jan Tulak jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx / jan@xxxxxxxx -- 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
