On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:20:26PM +0100, Jan Tulak wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I'm looking on test xfs/096 and I'm not sure if I got it right:
>
> "test out mkfs_xfs output on IRIX/Linux and some of its error handling,
> ensure pv#920679 is addressed" - this, and things like "$max_lr_size +
> 4096" all looks like mkfs should be catching invalid input. Yet the .out
> file instead looks like it should create the FS correctly (it contains the
> created fs stats instead of mkfs's usage and some error).
>
max_lr_size refers to the maximum log record size (256k). When a larger
log stripe unit is passed, mkfs warns about it and adjusts to the
default:
$ mkfs.xfs -f -l su=266240 ./tmp
log stripe unit (266240 bytes) is too large (maximum is 256KiB)
log stripe unit adjusted to 32KiB
meta-data=./tmp isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=655360
blks
= sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1
= crc=0 finobt=0
data = bsize=4096 blocks=2621440, imaxpct=25
= sunit=0 swidth=0 blks
naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=0
log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=2560, version=2
= sectsz=512 sunit=8 blks, lazy-count=1
realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
The mkfs_filter() function in xfs/096 filters out the warning messages
(iirc, the warning is a relatively recent addition), so the test output
file expects the typical (filtered) mkfs output.
Brian
> So either I'm reading the test wrong, or the patch approves invalid
> behaviour. I hit this test because when I added a stricter input
> validation, this patch started to fail as mkfs is now refusing to create
> the fs with these arguments.
>
> BTW: I tried to look for the mentioned pv number, but didn't found it -
> where should I look further?
> Cheers
> Jan
>
> --
> Jan Tulak
> jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx / jan@xxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
