Dave Chinner wrote:
> I'm not sure this really is a generic test - it's testing an ext4
> specific bug. We've got other generic tests that exercise fallocate,
> and some filesystems (like XFS) don't have special bits to say there
> are extents beyond EOF and checking a filesystem repeated won't
> report any problems. So perhaps if should be '_supported_fs ext4'
Oops we're giving conflicting advice :) I thought a test that
exercises blocks-past-eof-filling at various boundaries made
sense in general, even if the specific regression test is ext4-specific.
Seems like at least ocfs2/btrfs might benefit from the basic exercise,
so I was recommending that it be generic.
I don't think there is any other test that makes a point of
allocating X blocks past eof and then filling them exactly,
overwriting/extending past them, etc. Seems like a good addition
in general.
-Eric
|