mbox series

[0/3] LTP random fixes for xfs and btrfs

Message ID 20241201093606.68993-1-zlang@kernel.org
Headers show
Series LTP random fixes for xfs and btrfs | expand

Message

Zorro Lang Dec. 1, 2024, 9:36 a.m. UTC 
[PATCH 1/3] ioctl_ficlone02.c: set all_filesystems to zero

  It doesn't skip filesystems as its plan, fix it.

[PATCH 2/3] stat04+lstat03: fix bad blocksize mkfs option for xfs

  mkfs.xfs doesn't support "-b 1024", needs "-b size=1024"

[PATCH 3/3] stat04+lstat03: skip test on btrfs

  The "-b" option of mkfs.btrfs isn't a blocksize option, there's not blocksize
  option in mkfs.btrfs. So I'd like to skip this test for btrfs. But I'm not
  sure if there's better way, so CC *btrfs list* to get more review points for
  that.
  (BTW, better to have a common helper to deal with different filesystems'
   blocksize options in the future)

Comments

Qu Wenruo Dec. 1, 2024, 9:55 a.m. UTC | #1 
在 2024/12/1 20:06, Zorro Lang 写道:
> [PATCH 1/3] ioctl_ficlone02.c: set all_filesystems to zero
>
>    It doesn't skip filesystems as its plan, fix it.
>
> [PATCH 2/3] stat04+lstat03: fix bad blocksize mkfs option for xfs
>
>    mkfs.xfs doesn't support "-b 1024", needs "-b size=1024"
>
> [PATCH 3/3] stat04+lstat03: skip test on btrfs
>
>    The "-b" option of mkfs.btrfs isn't a blocksize option, there's not blocksize
>    option in mkfs.btrfs. So I'd like to skip this test for btrfs. But I'm not
>    sure if there's better way, so CC *btrfs list* to get more review points for
>    that.
>    (BTW, better to have a common helper to deal with different filesystems'
>     blocksize options in the future)
>

Well, I'd say Wilcox is kinda correct here.

Btrfs uses the name "sector size" to indicate the minimal unit, aka, the
blocksize of all the other fses.

Not sure if we will even rename the whole sector size to block size in
the future, it looks like a huge work to do.


However there is another problem related to the btrfs block size (aka,
"sector size").
Our block size starts at 4K, ends at 64K, and we do not yet support
block size > page size.

For systems with 64K page size, although we have the support for block
size < page size, I have added an artificial limits, that only 4K block
size and page size is supported.


So even if we added btrfs block size support, it won't really work
except 4K and page size (at least for now).

Thanks,
Qu
David Sterba Dec. 3, 2024, 4:22 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 08:25:19PM +1030, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2024/12/1 20:06, Zorro Lang 写道:
> > [PATCH 1/3] ioctl_ficlone02.c: set all_filesystems to zero
> >
> >    It doesn't skip filesystems as its plan, fix it.
> >
> > [PATCH 2/3] stat04+lstat03: fix bad blocksize mkfs option for xfs
> >
> >    mkfs.xfs doesn't support "-b 1024", needs "-b size=1024"
> >
> > [PATCH 3/3] stat04+lstat03: skip test on btrfs
> >
> >    The "-b" option of mkfs.btrfs isn't a blocksize option, there's not blocksize
> >    option in mkfs.btrfs. So I'd like to skip this test for btrfs. But I'm not
> >    sure if there's better way, so CC *btrfs list* to get more review points for
> >    that.
> >    (BTW, better to have a common helper to deal with different filesystems'
> >     blocksize options in the future)
> >
> 
> Well, I'd say Wilcox is kinda correct here.
> 
> Btrfs uses the name "sector size" to indicate the minimal unit, aka, the
> blocksize of all the other fses.
> 
> Not sure if we will even rename the whole sector size to block size in
> the future, it looks like a huge work to do.

Well, I think we can at least add an alias blocksize to sectorsize to
mkfs.  We don't have a time machine to change the initial confusing
naming, but can slightly improve the user convenience.  Internally in
the code we can keep sectorsize or incrementally rename it to blocksize.
What matters more here is the user intrface, i.e. the mkfs options.