[Top] [All Lists]

[PATCH 0/2v v7] XFS TESTS: ENOSPC Punch Hole Test

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [PATCH 0/2v v7] XFS TESTS: ENOSPC Punch Hole Test
From: Allison Henderson <achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:44:59 -0700
Cc: Allison Henderson <achender@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi All,

This is another set I sent out a while ago, but I didnt see it show up on the 
so I am resending this one too. The work in this patch is a continuation from a 
previous patch set that has been partially accepted, so I thought I 
should retain the v6.

This patch set adds the ENOSPC test that was used for ext4 punch hole testing.
This test will verify that a hole can be punched even when the disk is full.
Reserved blocks should be used to complete the operation when there is not 
to further fragment the file.

Because punching a hole does not always require extra blocks, there needs to 
be serveal iterations of punching holes, and then filling the file system to 
usage before it is forced to grow the tree in order to handle the 
The growing of the tree is what would cause ENOSPC if not for the use of 
reserved blocks.

I could use some opinions on this patch set becuase I am not sure if other 
handle their punch holes in the same way.  Although xfs appears to pass the 
should this test be an ext4 only test? Thx!

Allison Henderson (2):
  XFS TESTS: ENOSPC Punch Hole: Move su routines in 123 to common.rc
  XFS TESTS: Add ENOSPC Hole Punch Test

 123       |   24 --------
 255       |  178 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 255.out   |    1 +
 common.rc |   20 +++++++
 group     |    1 +
 5 files changed, 200 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 255
 create mode 100644 255.out

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