Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] common: Improve blocksize support for udf

From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, fstests@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] common: Improve blocksize support for udf
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2023 13:28:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230207122824.mmxbbxjwseo2fibu@quack3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230206111235.f2nwx2xmdwjtnv64@zlang-mailbox>

On Mon 06-02-23 19:12:35, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:39:59PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Add better support for blocksize selection in _scratch_mkfs_sized
> > (accept another variant of mkfs options, select correct default block
> > size if not specified). Also add blocksize selection support to
> > _scratch_mkfs_blocksized.
> > 
> > For _check_udf_filesystem to keep working when blocksize is not
> > specified in MKFS_OPTIONS, add detection of blocksize from a mounted
> > filesystem.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > ---
> 
> This patch looks good to me, thanks for doing this for udf filesystem :)
> 
> It's been long time, no patches from udf list to fstests list. For exmaple,
> The udf/102 missed the _setup_udf_scratchdir() helper (be removed) for long
> time, if you're working on udf testing, you might be interested in it.

So I did some larger UDF kernel changes in this cycle so I also found some
time to do more testing which has shown all the problems. My plan is to run
fstests for UDF more often and slowly reduce the amount of failing tests
(so far I was more or less happy that the basic functionality looked solid
and the kernel didn't crash during whole fstests run ;).

> Anyway, I'll merge this patchset this week.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>

Thanks!

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR