Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 8 Jul 2021 08:51:06 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
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: <YOb0uklBx0NOLKG3@mit.edu>
References: <cover.1623651783.git.riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
 <fda7d76b27234a46c3e7165fbdfc4154708c227d.1623651783.git.riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
 <YNybadzpnZZdwtzR@mit.edu>
 <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

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