[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Test to ensure that the EOFBLOCK_FL gets set/unset correctly.
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:17:03 +1000
Cc: Akshay Lal <alal@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4C785254.2020708@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1282941224-5805-1-git-send-email-alal@xxxxxxxxxx> <20100827233216.GJ705@dastard> <4C785254.2020708@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 07:03:32PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 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.

Ok, that seems reasonable. If the bug results in filesystem
corruption, then maybe just relying on the check at the end of the
test to fail it would be appropriate?


Dave Chinner

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