Oops.. Darrick left a workaround in the xfsprogs code for fstests. My
test setup missed TEST_DEV export somehow and the workaround was not
working.
Nevermind for this patchset.. My bloody hours...
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 8:18 AM Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:07 AM Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 07:46:40AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:36:34PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 12:44:30PM +0800, Murphy Zhou wrote:
> > > > > Since this xfsprogs commit:
> > > > > 6e0ed3d19c54 mkfs: stop allowing tiny filesystems
> > > > > XFS requires filesystem size bigger then 300m.
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering if we can just use 300M, or 512M is better. CC linux-xfs to
> > > > get more discussion about how to deal with this change on mkfs.xfs.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Increase thoese numbers to 512M at least. There is no special
> > > > > reason for the magic number 512, just double it from original
> > > > > 256M and being reasonable small.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm... do we need a global parameter to define the minimal XFS size,
> > > > or even minimal local fs size? e.g. MIN_XFS_SIZE, or MIN_FS_SIZE ...
> > >
> > > I think it would be a convenient time to create a helper to capture
> > > that, seeing as the LTP developers recently let slip that they have such
> > > a thing somewhere, and min fs size logic is scattered around fstests.
> >
> > It's a little hard to find out all cases which use the minimal fs size.
> > But for xfs, I think we can do that with this chance. We can have:
> >
> > export XFS_MIN_SIZE=$((300 * 1024 * 1024))
> > export XFS_MIN_LOG_SIZE=$((64 * 1024 * 1024))
> >
> > at first, then init minimal $FSTYP size likes:
> >
> > init_min_fs_size()
> > {
> > case $FSTYP in
> > xfs)
> > FS_MIN_SIZE=$XFS_MIN_SIZE
> > ;;
> > *)
> > FS_MIN_SIZE="unlimited" # or a big enough size??
> > ;;
> > esac
> > }
> >
> > Then other fs can follow this to add their size limitation.
> > Any better ideas?
>
> In generic/042 f2fs has a similar kind of limitation.
>
> Let me check how LTP guys handle this.
>
> Thanks,
> Murphy
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zorro
> >
> > >
> >
> snipped
> >
