xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfstests: fix fsx fpunch test to actually test for fpunc

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfstests: fix fsx fpunch test to actually test for fpunch
From: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:56:12 -0500
Cc: <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1310086426-30605-2-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1310086426-30605-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1310086426-30605-2-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: <aelder@xxxxxxx>
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 10:53 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> The operation flags parameter to fallocate is the second parameter,
> not the last. Hence the fpunch test is actually testing for falloc
> support, not fpunch. Somebody needs a brown paper bag.
> 
> Also, add a ftruncate call whenthe fpunch succeeds just in case the
> file was not already zero sized. Failing to ensure we start with a
> zero length file can cause read ops to fail size checks if they
> occur before the file is written to be the main test loop.
> 
> While there, observe the quiet flag the same as the falloc test
> does and have them both emit the warning at the same error level.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>

Looks good.  Even if the arguments were in the
right order, the length has to be greater than
zero also.

Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>



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