xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [XFS Tests Punch Hole 2/3 v3] XFS TESTS: Add Fallocate Punch Hole Te

To: Allison Henderson <achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [XFS Tests Punch Hole 2/3 v3] XFS TESTS: Add Fallocate Punch Hole Test Routines
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 13:57:04 +1000
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4DD70B5B.6090400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4DD43300.6010908@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110519013144.GF32466@dastard> <4DD560CF.3040706@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110519235601.GL32466@dastard> <4DD5C242.3010708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4DD70B5B.6090400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 05:46:19PM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote:
> On 5/19/2011 6:22 PM, Allison Henderson wrote:
> >Also, there was one more test that I meant to be a part of this
> >collection, but I was not finished with it at the time I submitted the
> >patch for feedback. Basically it checks to see if a hole can still be
> >punched out when the disk is full. In ext4 this is allowable because
> >reserved space is used to allow the operation to proceed where it would
> >have otherwise failed. I'm not sure if this is also ext4 specific
> >though. Would this be another candidate for adding to 252? Thx!
> 
> I just didnt want this question to get washed away in the traffic.
> I am working on an updated patch set, should I include the extra
> test case?  Thx!

Yes, though probably not in the _generic_test_punch function. And
extra case specific to 252 that does something like:

        umount SCRATCH_DEV
        make a small filesystem
        scratch_mount
        prealloc to ENOSPC
        punch


Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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