[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS Test Case:252 - Shows Wrong Output

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS Test Case:252 - Shows Wrong Output
From: Amit Sahrawat <amit.sahrawat83@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:27:52 +0530
Cc: Allison Henderson <achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=i5NZJhsJFBvlTLnRd0ajrUtUG5/qadxCM0jVdf0/iTg=; b=fkRq/XRmlm7GVeH6dwek4ddlIP3BdN9DswBnyYAJQZU9L6FiN6hEcAodmImNOolWIU dKTPJgLvftvOlWg3sg/Ay5UScjNSDC9my6//GyJJM8GwqiPVKaNtMbkWoT/yFhKA3W0S 07F4ytSYBMoRQiqzrNj7R4gTFAnF3QHBEzVnA=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=PSpziVEBFl9ILYddZZ+GWTE1tcccqNWbQxzUwB9Rzkwl/PpDIOGRdQZA/XW7WVXSZP 2fcET5pw8RckSfW2lRbtDbCuZioVVYVNxSIw/DBfG/aaEm6dtUV4JegJOFuDB8x4G5zr 5xPM38jHZ/Cm0swWBON/khLF+Peg7VJ9WckSw=
In-reply-to: <BANLkTi=2rTU2R_hGGeMhLYzM6FKPOW0L8w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <BANLkTinBNa9ox+jDaorBoKdhoQQzTUA58A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <BANLkTi=wHAxYuLE33AVsc2rp0eEm5GB40w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4E022818.7030406@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <BANLkTimuv183W0ef0aYCySWPnv9rLqNuww@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110623062030.GY32466@dastard> <BANLkTi=2rTU2R_hGGeMhLYzM6FKPOW0L8w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This is linked with new feature.. Add punch support, although the code existed before also, but the 'punch' has been specifically handled through
Also, fallocate is moved out from  'xfs_iops.c' to 'file operations' in xfs_file.c, which handles the case for   
               return -EOPNOTSUPP;
                cmd = XFS_IOC_UNRESVSP;
Now, for old kernels, how to make sure that this test case does not execute or return meaningful error? without changing the kernel code it will not return error;
Since, FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE this is true and the command work with XFS_IOC_RESVP.
Please suggest.
Thanks & Regards,
Amit Sahrawat

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Amit Sahrawat <amit.sahrawat83@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Fortunately or Unfortunately I have 2.6.31(x86) and and both do not support "fpunch". As per your earlier mail - 2.6.35.y does not support "fpunch" so I though of trying on 2.6.31.y.
I will check out for the return errors in this condition and will update more on this.
Thanks & Regards,
Amit Sahrawat

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21:26AM +0530, Amit Sahrawat wrote:
> Hi,
> *PLATFORM      -- Linux/i686 localhost*
> The output as per the command mentioned by you:
> [root@localhost xfstests-2011-05-11]# xfs_io -f -c "truncate 20k" -c "falloc
> 0 20k" -c "pwrite 0k 8k" -c "fs
> ync" -c "pwrite 12k 8k" -c "fsync" -c "fpunch 4k 12k" -c "fiemap -v"
> /media/c/newfile
> wrote 8192/8192 bytes at offset 0
> 8 KiB, 2 ops; 0.0000 sec (434.028 MiB/sec and 111111.1111 ops/sec)
> command "fs
> ync" not found
> wrote 8192/8192 bytes at offset 12288
> 8 KiB, 2 ops; 0.0000 sec (977 MiB/sec and 250000.0000 ops/sec)
> /media/c/newfile:
>    0: [0..15]:         176..191            16   0x0
>    1: [16..23]:        192..199             8 0x800
>    2: [24..39]:        200..215            16   0x1
> *

The fpunch command did not punch the range out.

Amit, once again you're testing on a kernel (2.6.31) that does not
support the punch operation. As I suggested previously, you need to
find out why the fpunch command is not returning an error as that is
root cause of your failures.


Dave Chinner

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