Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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?
That's fine by me, if e2fsck will squawk, that's enough.