[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <p5eminun5jsblyb3k5nycsrefpzlzqlrihozlz3ezh65hcsfnu@pxhvomc3qwmn>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2023 14:54:52 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
To: Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@....com>
Cc: "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro@...tmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST blktests v2 2/9] nvme: Do not hard code device
size for dd test
> > - dd if=/dev/urandom of="/dev/${nvmedev}n1" count=128000 bs=4k status=none
> > + size="$(blockdev --getsize64 "/dev/${nvmedev}n1")"
> > + bs="$(blockdev --getbsz "/dev/${nvmedev}n1")"
> > + count=$((size / bs - 1))
>
> Do we need -1?
Not really. My aim was to just to make it test case a bit more
reliable. The original test didn't fill up the disk either.
I am going to drop it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists