[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Question on xfstest 274

To: WuBo <wu.bo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Question on xfstest 274
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:22:55 -0600
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4F2603CC.9080807@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4F230E62.8020004@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4F2603CC.9080807@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
On 1/29/12 8:43 PM, WuBo wrote:
> On 01/28/2012 04:51 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Hi, I was wondering if you could describe your intent for 274 just a little 
>> more.
>> The test says:
>> # preallocation test
>> but that is the only comment other than copyright.  ;)
> Maybe the comment is too simple :)
>> I see that it does:
>> # Make a 1G fs
>> # Create a single 4k file
>> # Allocate 1M past the EOF on that file
>> # Completely fill remaining space, using 2 other files
>> # Write 8k past EOF on the original file which has blocks past EOF
>> but I am not certain what you are testing.  I presume that
>> you are testing the fact that the 1M past EOF should be truncated,
>> freeing up space, and allowing the 8k write to succeed?
>> Is that right?
> Actually I write 8K at the end of 4K(seek=1), and what I want to test
> is the 8K-write should be succeed because the preallocation 1M. At the
> mean while, the file should not be truncated.

Ah, right - I missed the conv=notrunc sorry.  Ok, that all makes
sense.  I think I will try to clean up the test just a bit.


> Thanks,
> wubo
>> However, at least on ext4 I noticed that the "fill the fs"
>> stage does not succeed; perhaps that should be tested as well.
>> I can do some similar work on this like I did for 275, but I need
>> to be sure I understand your original intent for the test, first.
>> Thanks,
>> -Eric
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

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