[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Test to ensure that the EOFBLOCK_FL gets set/unset correctly

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Test to ensure that the EOFBLOCK_FL gets set/unset correctly.
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:03:32 -0500
Cc: Akshay Lal <alal@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100827233216.GJ705@dastard>
References: <1282941224-5805-1-git-send-email-alal@xxxxxxxxxx> <20100827233216.GJ705@dastard>
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20100228)
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.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>