On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 01:19:23PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 02:07:37PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 04:48:08PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 05:08:32PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> >>Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan(a)redhat.com>
> >>---
> >> tests/test-cache-block-size.sh | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/tests/test-cache-block-size.sh b/tests/test-cache-block-size.sh
> >>index d20cc94002b6..5e83ebc1cfaa 100755
> >>--- a/tests/test-cache-block-size.sh
> >>+++ b/tests/test-cache-block-size.sh
> >>@@ -47,24 +47,35 @@ truncate -s 128K cache-block-size.img
> >>
> >> # Run nbdkit with the caching filter.
> >> start_nbdkit -P cache-block-size.pid -U $sock --filter=cache \
> >>- file cache-block-size.img cache-min-block-size=4K
> >>+ file cache-block-size.img cache-min-block-size=64K \
> >
> >Because of commit c1905b0a2 ("cache, cow: Use a 64K block size by
> >default"), 64K is the default block size. So this doesn't test that
> >the parameter works. Maybe choose a different block size here?
> >
>
> I tried that it fails with 32K, but I can double all the numbers in this
> test if you want.
It fails even after adjusting the test to cope with the different
block size?
No, that works. But never mind, I doubled all the numbers and tested
cache-min-block-size=128K in v2 here:
https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2021-August/msg00051.html