From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: fstests@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Fix test failures caused by storage devcies with 4k sectors
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:55:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231022215529.2202150-1-tytso@mit.edu> (raw)
When testing with an SSD with a 4k logical sector size, I ran into a
number of test failures that were caused by assumption that the
storage device can support 1k block sizes.
Fix this by skipping those tests, or in the case of generic/563, make
sure the loop device has the same block size as the backing scratch
device. (Arguably losetup should do that, but at least today, it
doesn't.)
This test series was tested using:
gce-xfstests --local-ssd-nvme -c ext4,xfs,btrfs -g auto
and comparing it against the results of running the same set of tests
without the --local-ssd-nvme option, which introduces the use of a 4k
sector storage device.
With these patches applied, there is one remaining failure with
xfs/157 but I'm not sure how to deal with it, since Google searches
regarding the failure message just simply say "Don't try to use a
regular file as a logdev", which isn't particularly helpful here.
Maybe the right thing is to just hard code a _notrun if "blockdev
--getss $SCRATCH_DEV" is not 512? It's not clear to me, so I've left
it.
I also noted two new failures with btrfs, generic/175 and generic/251.
The cause of why these tests are failing with a 4k sector device is
not obvious to me. But certainly things are much better with this
patch, and perhaps the the btrfs and xfs developers can address these
last new test failures if they care about this particular test
scenario.
Theodore Ts'o (2):
common: check if the scratch device can support 1024 block sizes
generic/563: create the loop dev with the same block size as the
scratch dev
common/rc | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
tests/ext4/055 | 1 +
tests/generic/563 | 2 +-
tests/xfs/205 | 1 +
tests/xfs/432 | 1 +
tests/xfs/516 | 1 +
6 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--
2.31.0
next reply other threads:[~2023-10-22 21:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-22 21:55 Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2023-10-22 21:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] common: check if the scratch device can support 1024 block sizes Theodore Ts'o
2023-10-23 15:45 ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-10-23 19:48 ` Theodore Ts'o
2023-10-22 21:55 ` [PATCH 2/2] generic/563: create the loop dev with the same block size as the scratch dev Theodore Ts'o
2023-10-23 15:54 ` Darrick J. Wong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20231022215529.2202150-1-tytso@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.