Re: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/1] API: Allow to use xfs filesystems < 300 MB

[Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>]

> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:40:15PM +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > mkfs.xfs since v5.19.0-rc1 [1] refuses to create filesystems < 300 MB.
> > Reuse workaround intended for fstests: set 3 environment variables:
> > export TEST_DIR=1 TEST_DEV=1 QA_CHECK_FS=1

> > Workaround added to both C API (for .needs_device) and shell API (for
> > TST_NEEDS_DEVICE=1).

> > Fix includes any use of filesystem (C API: .all_filesystems,
> > .format_device, shell API: TST_MOUNT_DEVICE=1, TST_FORMAT_DEVICE=1).

> > Fixes various C and shell API failures, e.g.:

> > ./mkfs01.sh -f xfs
> > mkfs01 1 TINFO: timeout per run is 0h 5m 0s
> > tst_device.c:89: TINFO: Found free device 0 '/dev/loop0'
> > mkfs01 1 TFAIL: 'mkfs -t xfs  -f /dev/loop0 ' failed.
> > Filesystem must be larger than 300MB.

> > ./creat09
> > ...
> > tst_test.c:1599: TINFO: Testing on xfs
> > tst_test.c:1064: TINFO: Formatting /dev/loop0 with xfs opts='' extra opts=''
> > Filesystem must be larger than 300MB.

> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/164738662491.3191861.15611882856331908607.stgit@magnolia/

> > Reported-by: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz>
> > Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> > ---
> > Dave, please next time remember there are other testsuites testing XFS,

> Dave?? <cough>
Eh, I'm sorry.

> > not just fstests :). How long do you plan to keep this workaround?

> Forever.  In the ideal world we'll some day get around to restructuring
> all the xfstests that do tricky things with sub-500M filesystems, but
> that's the unfortunate part of removing support for small disks.

> Most of the fstests don't care about the fs size and so they'll run with
> the configured storage (some tens or millions of gigabytes) so we're
> mostly using the same fs sizes that users are expected to have.

Thanks for info.

> > LTP community: do we want to depend on this behavior or we just increase from 256MB to 301 MB
> > (either for XFS or for all). It might not be a good idea to test size users are required
> > to use.

> It might *not*? <confused>
Again, I'm sorry, missing another not. I.e. I suppose normal users will not try
to go below 301MB, therefore LTP probably should not do it either. That's why
RFC.

Kind regards,
Petr

> --D


> > Kind regards,
> > Petr
> >  lib/tst_test.c            | 7 +++++++
> >  testcases/lib/tst_test.sh | 6 +++++-
> >  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

> > diff --git a/lib/tst_test.c b/lib/tst_test.c
> > index 4b4dd125d..657348732 100644
> > --- a/lib/tst_test.c
> > +++ b/lib/tst_test.c
> > @@ -1160,6 +1160,13 @@ static void do_setup(int argc, char *argv[])
> >  	if (tst_test->all_filesystems)
> >  		tst_test->needs_device = 1;

> > +	/* allow to use XFS filesystem < 300 MB */
> > +	if (tst_test->needs_device) {
> > +		putenv("TEST_DIR=1");
> > +		putenv("TEST_DEV=1");
> > +		putenv("QA_CHECK_FS=1");
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	if (tst_test->min_cpus > (unsigned long)tst_ncpus())
> >  		tst_brk(TCONF, "Test needs at least %lu CPUs online", tst_test->min_cpus);

> > diff --git a/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh b/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh
> > index 24a3d29d8..b42e54ca1 100644
> > --- a/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh
> > +++ b/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh
> > @@ -671,7 +671,11 @@ tst_run()

> >  	[ "$TST_MOUNT_DEVICE" = 1 ] && TST_FORMAT_DEVICE=1
> >  	[ "$TST_FORMAT_DEVICE" = 1 ] && TST_NEEDS_DEVICE=1
> > -	[ "$TST_NEEDS_DEVICE" = 1 ] && TST_NEEDS_TMPDIR=1
> > +	if [ "$TST_NEEDS_DEVICE" = 1 ]; then
> > +		TST_NEEDS_TMPDIR=1
> > +		# allow to use XFS filesystem < 300 MB
> > +		export TEST_DIR=1 TEST_DEV=1 QA_CHECK_FS=1
> > +	fi

> >  	if [ "$TST_NEEDS_TMPDIR" = 1 ]; then
> >  		if [ -z "$TMPDIR" ]; then
> > -- 
> > 2.37.1


-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp