On 4/24/25 20:30, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2025 / 01:09, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 12:49:57PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>>> The block size must be smaller than the zone length, otherwise fio will
>>> fail immediately.
>>
>> In theory yes. In practice such a zone size makes zero sense, and will
>> not work with any zoned file systems or other users.
>>
>> So instead we should just warn about a silly zone size here instead
>> of trying to handle it.
>
> As a similar idea, how about to skip the test case if the test target device's
> zone size is too small?
>
> Sean, could you try out the patch below? It will skip the test case for your
> device, and you will not see the test case failing.
>
> diff --git a/tests/zbd/005 b/tests/zbd/005
> index 4aa1ab5..d23eabe 100755
> --- a/tests/zbd/005
> +++ b/tests/zbd/005
> @@ -36,6 +36,13 @@ test_device() {
> _get_blkzone_report "${TEST_DEV}" || return $?
>
> zone_idx=$(_find_first_sequential_zone) || return $?
> +
> + # Ensure the zone size is large enough for the fio command below
> + if ((ZONE_LENGTHS[zone_idx] < 512)); then
> + SKIP_REASONS+=("too small zone size")
Nit: "zone size too small" would be better.
> + return
> + fi
> +
> offset=$((ZONE_STARTS[zone_idx] * 512))
> moaz=$(_test_dev_max_open_active_zones)
>
>
>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
