On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 07:15:52PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 08:18:44AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > - if (h_len > h_size && h_len <= log->l_mp->m_logbsize && > > > + if (!xfs_has_reflink(log->l_mp) && xfs_has_reflink(log->l_mp) && > > > + h_len > h_size && h_len <= log->l_mp->m_logbsize && > > > > ... but I'm going to assume this hasn't been tested. ;) Do you mean to > > also check !rmapbt here? > > Heh. Well, it has been tested in that we don't do the fixup for the > reproducer fixed by the previous patch and in that xfstests still passes. > I guess nothing in there hits the old mkfs fixup, which isn't surprising. > Yeah.. (sorry, just teasing about the testing.. ;). > > Can you please also just double check that we still handle the original > > mkfs problem correctly after these changes? I think that just means mkfs > > from a sufficiently old xfsprogs using a larger log stripe unit, and > > confirm the fs mounts (with a warning). > > Yeah. Is there any way to commit a fs image to xfstests so that we > actually regularly test for it? > Not sure.. ideally we could fuzz the log record header somehow or another to test for these various scenarios, since we clearly broke this once already. I don't quite recall if I looked into that at the time of the original workaround. To Darrick's point, I wonder if there would be some use to an expert logformat command or something that allowed for some bonkers parameters (assuming something like that doesn't exist already). I'm out on PTO for (at least) today, but I can take a closer look at that once I'm back and caught up... Brian
