| To: | Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Test 274 in xfstests |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 15 May 2012 13:12:21 -0500 |
| Cc: | wu.bo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20120515180521.GE26579@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20120515180521.GE26579@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 |
On 5/15/12 1:05 PM, Jan Kara wrote: > Hello, > > test 274 fails e.g. for ext3 because it does not support fallocate(). So > I would think the best way to fix the is to add to the test > _require_xfs_io_falloc() > so that the test is run only for filesystems which do support fallocate. > But with that is connected one slightly related question - why does the > test use fallocate(1) binary instead of "xfs_io falloc" command which is > more common in xfstests? > > Honza Argh I'm behind. I had: [PATCH V2] xfstests: several 274 fixups on the list way too long ago. Want to test that out? It has 1 review on the list, I'll merge it soon - if you want to give it a quick test first, go for it :) -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Test 274 in xfstests, Jan Kara |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: use s_umount sema in xfs_sync_worker, Mark Tinguely |
| Previous by Thread: | Test 274 in xfstests, Jan Kara |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Test 274 in xfstests, Jan Kara |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |