[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: make 275 xfs specific.

To: Tao Ma <tm@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: make 275 xfs specific.
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:55:06 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4FA692B7.9040006@xxxxxx>
References: <1336230429-2939-1-git-send-email-tm@xxxxxx> <20120505233744.GE25351@dastard> <4FA692B7.9040006@xxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0
On 5/6/12 10:03 AM, Tao Ma wrote:
> On 05/06/2012 07:37 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:07:09PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
>>> From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> In my test with ext4, 275 can't pass because ext4
>>> can create a 8k file in the end not like what xfs
>>> does. So make this test case xfs only for now.
>> It's not an XFS specific test - it's a test that is supposed to test
>> POSIX write behaviour. i.e. if the filesystem is full, and then you
>> free 4k of space, then an 8k write should only be able to write 4k,
>> yes?
> Yes, but it doesn't work as expected for ext4.

Came across this thread again.  I had patches on the list a while ago
to fix it up.

[PATCH V2] xfstests: make 275 pass

But it never got fully reviewed or merged.   :(


>> So doesn't a failure on ext4 indicate that there's something wrong
>> with ext4 (either it's ENOSPC detection or the short write
>> handling), not the test?
> Actually in my test, ext4 can create the file with 8K file size, not a
> short write. I haven't looked into it yet. But AFAICS, if we have an
> ext4 volume with 8k cluster size, a 4k file can occupy a 8k cluster and
> the final write of 8k will succeed instead of the short write.
> Thanks
> Tao
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

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