On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Lukáš Czerner <lczer...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > >> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 14:35:50 +0200 (CEST) >> From: Lukáš Czerner <lczer...@redhat.com> >> To: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdman...@gmail.com> >> Cc: fste...@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic/017: skip invalid block sizes for btrfs >> >> On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: >> >> > Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:28:00 +0100 >> > From: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdman...@gmail.com> >> > To: fste...@vger.kernel.org >> > Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, >> > Filipe David Borba Manana <fdman...@gmail.com> >> > Subject: [PATCH] generic/017: skip invalid block sizes for btrfs >> > >> > In btrfs the block size (called sector size in btrfs) can not be >> > smaller then the page size. Therefore skip block sizes smaller >> > then page size if the fs is btrfs, so that the test can succeed >> > on btrfs (testing only with block sizes of 4kb on systems with a >> > page size of 4Kb). >> >> The test itself is wrong, it's trying to do _scratch_mkfs with >> different block size, but the block size might already be specified >> by the user (in fact it should be user responsibility to test >> different block sizes). In the case that mkfs can not handle >> multiple of the same option like mkfs.xfs for example it will fail, >> but the test will go on with the original file system. >> >> The test needs to be fixed to just test the file system with options >> specified by the user. Also we should change _scratch_mkfs() to fail >> the test if the mkfs failed (no one is actually testing mkfs_status >> variable anyway. > > Correction, _scratch_mkfs_xfs() is actually testing mkfs_status and > will attempt to re-run mkfs only with provided options if it failed > before. But my point remains the same, block size to test should be > in users hands and we should run all tests with different block > sizes, if supported.
Ok, so in other words, get rid of the block size loop and no more specific mkfs calls for each fs type? Thanks Lukas > > Thanks! > -Lukas > >> >> Once we do that this patch will no longer be needed. >> >> Thanks! >> -Lukas >> >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdman...@gmail.com> >> > --- >> > tests/generic/017 | 8 ++++++++ >> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> > >> > diff --git a/tests/generic/017 b/tests/generic/017 >> > index 13b7254..6495be5 100755 >> > --- a/tests/generic/017 >> > +++ b/tests/generic/017 >> > @@ -51,6 +51,14 @@ BLOCKS=10240 >> > >> > for (( BSIZE = 1024; BSIZE <= 4096; BSIZE *= 2 )); do >> > >> > + # btrfs doesn't support block size smaller then page size >> > + if [ "$FSTYP" == "btrfs" ]; then >> > + if (( $BSIZE < `getconf PAGE_SIZE` )); then >> > + echo "80" >> > + continue >> > + fi >> > + fi >> > + >> > length=$(($BLOCKS * $BSIZE)) >> > case $FSTYP in >> > xfs) >> > >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in >> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> -- Filipe David Manana, "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
