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@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