On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 11:56:03AM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 08:28:57AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 09:32:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 05:28:53PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> > > > This is achieved by defining a new function _set_default_fsx_avoid
> > > > called via run_fsx helper. This can be used to selectively disable
> > > > fsx options based on the configuration.
> > >
> > > > +_set_default_fsx_avoid() {
> > > > + case "$FSTYP" in
> > > > + "ext4")
> > > > + if [[ "$MKFS_OPTIONS" =~ bigalloc ]]; then
> > > > + export FSX_AVOID+=" -I -C"
> > > > + fi
> > > > + ;;
> > >
> > > This assumes that MKFS_OPTIONS reflects the file system features
> > > enabled on the file system. That's true by definition for the scratch
> > > fs, but it's not necessarily true for the test fs. At least in
> > > theory, someone could run fstests without a scrach device, and then
> > > MKFS_OPTION?S might not be set.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that we care; is this something that we make assumptions
> > > in other tests?
> >
> > /me suspects it ought to be checking dumpe2fs -h output.
> >
> > --D
>
> Hey Ted, Darrick,
>
> I agree that MKFS_OPTIONS is not ideal because it won't reflect the
> TEST_DEV options. Most of the existing users of run_fsx helper actually
> use the TEST_DEV instead so Darrick's suggestion of using dumpe2fs makes
> sense.
>
> I can use that approach in v3 if that sounds okay to everyone.
Sounds fine to me...
--D
> Regards,
> ojaswin
>
> >
> > >
> > > - Ted
> > >
>
