[LTP] [PATCH] block: add BLK_FEAT_LBS to check for PAGE_SIZE limit
Li Wang
liwang@redhat.com
Thu Mar 13 03:54:49 CET 2025
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 9:59 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 05:19:36PM +0800, Li Wang wrote:
> > Well, does that patch for ioctl_loop06 still make sense?
> > Or any other workaround?
> > https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2025-March/042599.html
>
> The real question is what block sizes we want to support for the
> loop driver. Because if it is larger than the physical block size
> it can lead to torn writes. But I guess no one cared about those
> on loop so far, so why care about this now..
>
That's because the kernel test-robot reports a LTP/ioctl_loop06 test
fail in kernel commit:
47dd67532303803 ("block/bdev: lift block size restrictions to 64k")
The ioctl_loop06 is a boundary testing and always fail with
LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE set a value larger than PAGE_SIZE.
But now it's set successfully unexpectedly.
If you all believe the boundary test for loopback driver is redundant,
I can help remove that from LTP code.
> But if we don't want any limit on the block size that patch looks
> right.
>
Yes, it highly depends on the kernel behavior.
--
Regards,
Li Wang
More information about the ltp
mailing list