From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80DF4C07E96 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 12:51:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD4561456 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 12:51:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229659AbhGHMxx (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jul 2021 08:53:53 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:49453 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231716AbhGHMxx (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jul 2021 08:53:53 -0400 Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-72-74-133-215.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [72.74.133.215]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 168Cp7hR032627 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 8 Jul 2021 08:51:07 -0400 Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id D3EFF15C3CC6; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 08:51:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 08:51:06 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Ritesh Harjani Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] ext4/003: Fix this test on 64K platform for dax config Message-ID: References: <20210708062445.xnoij6ya7huedqcv@riteshh-domain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210708062445.xnoij6ya7huedqcv@riteshh-domain> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: fstests@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 11:54:45AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > Yes, thanks for catching it. I think if make below change, i.e. scale cluster > size, we should be good. Since this will make blocks_per_group = 4096 and > clusters_per_group = 256. This is the condition, which I guess the original > kernel patch fixed it for. So, we need not increase the filesystem size. > > $MKFS_EXT4_PROG -F -b $BLOCK_SIZE -O bigalloc -C $((BLOCK_SIZE * 16)) -g 256 $SCRATCH_DEV 512m \ > Agreed, it looks like that should work. Cheers, - Ted