[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v5 06/10] xfs: add XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS ioctl

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/10] xfs: add XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS ioctl
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:23:05 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, tinguely@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20121018154615.GH1377@xxxxxxx>
References: <1349446636-8611-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <1349446636-8611-7-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121011141335.GY13214@xxxxxxx> <507749A2.4020206@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121015224626.GU24986@xxxxxxx> <20121015234902.GH2739@dastard> <20121016013901.GI2739@dastard> <20121017224004.GG1377@xxxxxxx> <507FF339.8020208@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121018154615.GH1377@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1
On 10/18/2012 11:46 AM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Brian,
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:16:57AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
>> On 10/17/2012 06:40 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:39:01PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:49:02AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 05:46:26PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Brian,
>> ...
>>>>>> I do think it is preferable to have a test case go in with the code where
>>>>>> possible.  Since you don't mind waiting a bit, that seems to be the way 
>>>>>> to go.
>>>>>> The other option could be to look for a volunteer to work on the test.  
>>>>>> ;)
>>>>> FWIW, given the background cleanup code can be trivially verified to
>>>>> work (open, apend, close, repeat, wait 5 minutes) and is the
>>>>> functionality that is needed in mainline, having something to test
>>>>> the ioctls should not stop the patchset from being merged.
>>> Can we be assured that we'll get an xfstest for it eventually?
>> Absolutely. Getting a command into xfs_io to support such a test is now
>> the top of my todo list with regard to XFS. :)
> Excellent!
>>> I think we can pull this in if Brian is willing post his test code.  
>>> Initially
>>> it needn't be posted as an xfstest, that's fine.  As it stands today it 
>>> appears
>>> that Brian is the only one to ever use the ioctl and there is no way for 
>>> anyone
>>> else to test it.  Not an ideal situation.
>> The impetus for this work was some prototype quota work for the gluster
>> distributed filesystem.
> Now I'm curious where you're coming from.  Is gluster your primary project?

gluster is the primary component of our appliance. We recommend running
our "bricks" on top of XFS, so one of my goals has been to get more
involved with XFS development as well. :) This was a nice little project
for me to break some ground on (actually I have some associated XFS
quota prealloc throttling changes in the works as well, but I'll
prioritize the testing work here first). ;)

>> Beyond testing via that, I just had a very
>> simple/stupid program with the command and data structure bits
>> copy/pasted in to open a file and invoke an xfsctl() with hardcoded
>> parameters. I don't consider it post-worthy or very useful, but attached
>> nonetheless since I have a couple things to deal with before I get a
>> chance to play with xfs_io.
> Thanks for posting it anyway.  That's enough for an interested party to do a
> little fooling.  I believe Mark is finishing up a review of this series, so
> we'll get it in soon.

Sounds good. Thanks.


> Regards,
>       Ben

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