[PATCH 00/19 v2] mkfs cleaning

[Jan Tulak]

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Dave Chinner <david at fromorbit.com> wrote:

>
> Looking at xfstests runs, new failures are:
>
> generic/054 -
> generic/055 - both fail with:
>
> +*** mkfs failed: -l version=2,su=4096 ***
>
> and the .full file has this specific error:
>
> Illegal value 4096 for -l su option. value is too small
>
> indicating that we should be allowing (2^N * block size) log
> stripe units to be set. This will be a limit configuration issue,
> most likely needing fixing in mkfs.
>

​I'm looking on it, but this issue was introduced by Eric's fix for
patch "mkfs:
table based parsing for converted parameters":

​> ​
The kernel enforces a max of XLOG_MAX_RECORD_BSIZE,
​> ​
and it should match the limits in L_SUNIT after all ...

And looking on fs/xfs/xfs_super.c, the MIN value is enforced too. So maybe
it is the test what needs fixing? Otherwise, I would put something
like XFS_MIN_SECTORSIZE there.

See http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c#L435



>
> xfs/096 6s ... - output mismatch (see
> /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/096.out.bad)
>     --- tests/xfs/096.out       2016-04-05 11:11:36.814382107 +1000
>     +++ /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/096.out.bad
> 2016-05-10 12:54:25.956199714 +1000
>     @@ -2,18 +2,62 @@
>
>      # su too big but must be a multiple of fs block size too
>      --- mkfs=-l version=2,su=262656 ---
>     -log stripe unit (262656) must be a multiple of the block size (4096)
>     +Illegal value 262656 for -l su option. value is too large
>     +Usage: mkfs.xfs
>     +/* blocksize */            [-b log=n|size=num]
>     ...
>     (Run 'diff -u tests/xfs/096.out
> /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/096.out.bad'  to see the
> entire diff)
>
> This test is explicitly testing an invalid value, checking that it
> falls back to a sane default. This patchset has changed the
> behaviour, so the xfstest will need some rework to handle both old
> and new mkfs behaviour.
>
> Can you send patches to fix all these up?
>

​Sure.

Jan
​



-- 
Jan Tulak
jtulak at redhat.com / jan at tulak.me
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/attachments/20160601/09814c32/attachment.html>