[Libguestfs] [nbdkit PATCH] tests: Check that cache-min-block-size works properly

[Martin Kletzander]

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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/attachments/20210809/1d3a5bc7/attachment.sig>