xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Test 274 in xfstests

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Test 274 in xfstests
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:18:39 -0500
Cc: wu.bo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120515201645.GF26579@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20120515180521.GE26579@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4FB29C85.5000603@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20120515201645.GF26579@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 3:16 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 15-05-12 13:12:21, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> 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 :)
>   Yup, the patch works for me (since I'm mostly interested in ext3 not
> being tested ;). I also reviewed your patch and it looks OK so feel free to
> add:
>   Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> 
>   Just one comment. Messages like:
> echo "Fill fs with 1M IOs; EIO expected" >> $seq.full
>   should probably speak of ENOSPC, not EIO, shouldn't they?

Oh, yeah, whoops.  thanks.

-Eric

>                                                               Honza

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