On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Alex Elder wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 14:37 +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > > FITRIM ioctl is used on a mounted filesystem to discard (or "trim")
> > > blocks which are not in use by the filesystem. This is useful for
> > > solid-state drives (SSDs) and thinly-provi-sioned storage. This test
> > > helps to verify filesystem FITRIM implementation to assure that it
> > > does not corrupts data.
> > >
> > > This test creates checksums of all files in xfstests directory and
> > > run several processes which clear its working directory on SCRATCH_MNT,
> > > then copy everything from xfstests into its working directory, create
> > > list of files in working directory and its checksums and compare it with
> > > the
> > > original list of checksums. Every process works in the loop so it repeat
> > > remove->copy->check, while fstrim tool is running simultaneously.
> > >
> > > Fstrim is just a helper tool which uses FITRIM ioctl to actually do the
> > > filesystem discard.
> > >
> > > I found this very useful because when the FITRIM is really buggy (thus
> > > data-destroying) the 249 test will notice, because checksums will most
> > > likely change.
> > Hello,
> > I know that there has been some problems with this in the past, but I
> > would be REALLY pleased if it should just go in already. The test number
> > probably needs to be updated, though.
> Lukas, I will commit this for you. Either later today or
> tomorrow. It was ready to go last week but I was preoccupied
> with getting my metadump patch series wrapped up. I'm done with
> that now (waiting for a review).
> I will update the test number to suit the latest code before I
> commit it. Thank you for your work on it, and for your patience.
> I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for this.
Thanks Alex, I appreciate it.
> > The thing is, that more and more batched discard implementations are
> > popping up and I do not even know if, or how, they are testing it. And
> > I just can not keep pointing them to the patch in the mailing list.
> > I know that that is probably mainly my fault, because of the
> > imperfections of the test, but *I hope* it should be all sorted out now
> > (except of test number obviously!). Could you please consider merging it
> > in ?
> > Thanks!
> > -Lukas