xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: use minimum log size in xfs/016

To: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: use minimum log size in xfs/016
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 09:58:59 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1382116574-7766-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1382116574-7766-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:16:14PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> Test xfs/016 fails to run due to invalid mkfs options. The log size
> is reported as too small according to the minimum log size
> calculation:
> 
> log size 512 blocks too small, minimum size is 853 blocks
> 
> Update log_size to the currently specified minimum.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  tests/xfs/016 | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/xfs/016 b/tests/xfs/016
> index 2fc6af2..e52f80c 100755
> --- a/tests/xfs/016
> +++ b/tests/xfs/016
> @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ _supported_os Linux
>  rm -f $seqres.full
>  
>  # mkfs sizes
> -log_size=2097152
> +log_size=3493888
>  log_size_bb=`expr $log_size / 512`

That shoul dbe fine. I've been ignoring xfs/016 because the
configurations I test throw this:

xfs/016 21s ... [not run] Cannot mkfs for this test using MKFS_OPTIONS specified

And so I haven't noticed if it was failing or not.

Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>