On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 10:06:46AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 11:56 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I tested it on top of 5.10.109 + these 5 patches: > > > > https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/xfs-5.10.y-1 > > > > > > > > I can test it in isolation if you like. Let me know if there are > > > > other forensics that you would like me to collect. > > > > > > > > > > Hm. Still no luck if I move to .109 and pull in those few patches. I > > > assume there's nothing else potentially interesting about the test env > > > other than the sparse file scratch dev (i.e., default mkfs options, > > > > Oh! right, this guest is debian/10 with xfsprogs 4.20, so the defaults > > are reflink=0. > > > > Actually, the section I am running is reflink_normapbt, but... > > > > ** mkfs failed with extra mkfs options added to "-f -m > > reflink=1,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=1," by test 076 ** > > ** attempting to mkfs using only test 076 options: -m crc=1 -i sparse ** > > ** mkfs failed with extra mkfs options added to "-f -m > > reflink=1,rmapbt=0, -i sparse=1," by test 076 ** > > ** attempting to mkfs using only test 076 options: -d size=50m -m > > crc=1 -i sparse ** > > > > mkfs.xfs does not accept double sparse argument, so the > > test falls back to mkfs defaults (+ sparse) > > > > I checked and xfsprogs 5.3 behaves the same, I did not check newer > > xfsprogs, but that seems like a test bug(?) > > > > xfsprogs 5.16 still behaves the same, meaning that xfs/076 and many many > other tests ignore the custom mkfs options for the specific sections. > That is a big test coverage issue! > > > IWO, unless xfsprogs was changed to be more tolerable to repeating > > arguments, then maybe nobody is testing xfs/076 with reflink=0 (?) > > > > Bingo! > Test passes 100 runs with debian/testing - xfsprogs v5.16 > > I shall try to amend the test to force reflink=0 to see what happens. > You should try it as well. > Interesting. If I set -mreflink=0 xfs/076 seems to do the right thing and format the scratch device as expected, but I'm still not seeing a failure on my system for whatever reason. Brian > Thanks, > Amir. >
