On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 03:52:48PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 1/22/14, 12:46 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > xfs/291 tries to fill the filesystem almost full, so if the log size > > changes with mkfs defaults then it's free space calculations are not > > longer valid and so it throws lots of ENOSPC errors during a run. > > This is not fatal for this test, but it does increase the runtime of > > it and fill the 291.full file with unnecessary errors. > > Hm so you've set the log size to 5m (-l size=5m) but how does that > interact with any "-l size=XXX" set in MKFS_OPTS ? see _scratch_mkfs_xfs: # a mkfs failure may be caused by conflicts between # $MKFS_OPTIONS and $extra_mkfs_options if [ $mkfs_status -ne 0 -a ! -z "$extra_mkfs_options" ]; then ( echo -n "** mkfs failed with extra mkfs options " echo "added to \"$MKFS_OPTIONS\" by test $seq **" echo -n "** attempting to mkfs using only test $seq " echo "options: $extra_mkfs_options **" ) >> $seqres.full # running mkfs again. overwrite previous mkfs output files _scratch_mkfs_xfs_opts $extra_mkfs_options \ 2>$tmp_dir.mkfserr 1>$tmp_dir.mkfsstd local mkfs_status=$? fi So, it will drop the MKFS_OPTIONS and just use the test specific options if there is a conflict/failure. > (It's certainly no worse than what I had in my original test; I just > wonder if we should ignore MKFS_OPTS altogether in this test, and > completely manually specify all options?) That's effectively what it already does automatically.... :) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs