On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:28:58AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 03:05:48PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. So we can have a small `if` conditional block for xfs > > > > to have fs size = 500M in generic test cases. > > > > > > I'd suggest creating a helper where you pass in the fs size you want and > > > it rounds that up to the minimum value. That would then get passed to > > > _scratch_mkfs_sized or _scsi_debug_get_dev. > > > > > > (testing this as we speak...) > > > > I would be more than happy if you send a patch for > > this but I also know you are pretty busy, so let me know if you want me > > to send a patch for this issue. > > > > You had something like this in mind? > > Close, but something more like below. It's not exhaustive; it merely > makes the xfs 64k bs tests pass: > I still see some errors in generic/081 and generic/108 that have been modified in your patch with the same issue. This is the mkfs option I am using: -m reflink=1,rmapbt=1, -i sparse=1, -b size=64k And with that: $ ./check -s 64k generic/042 generic/081 generic/108 generic/704 generic/730 generic/731 xfs/279 ... generic/081.out.bad: +max log size 1732 smaller than min log size 2028, filesystem is too small ... generic/108.out.bad: +max log size 1876 smaller than min log size 2028, filesystem is too small ... SECTION -- 64k ========================= Ran: generic/042 generic/081 generic/108 generic/704 generic/730 generic/731 xfs/279 Failures: generic/081 generic/108 Failed 2 of 7 tests **Increasing the size** to 600M fixes all the test in 64k system. The patch itself including `_small_fs_size_mb()` looks good to me. > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [PATCH] misc: fix test that fail formatting with 64k blocksize > > There's a bunch of tests that fail the formatting step when the test run > is configured to use XFS with a 64k blocksize. This happens because XFS > doesn't really support that combination due to minimum log size > constraints. Fix the test to format larger devices in that case. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > common/rc | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/generic/042 | 9 +-------- > tests/generic/081 | 7 +++++-- > tests/generic/108 | 6 ++++-- > tests/generic/704 | 3 ++- > tests/generic/730 | 3 ++- > tests/generic/731 | 3 ++- > tests/xfs/279 | 7 ++++--- As I indicated at the start of the thread, we need to also fix: generic/455 generic/457 generic/482 shared/298 Thanks! -- Pankaj Raghav
