On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:21:22PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59:12AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > I wonder that maybe we need to submit a patch to let xfstest understand
> > that a filesystem supports extents or not because after applied this
> > patch indirect-based file in ext4 has supported seek_data/hole and hole
> > punching. I usually run xfstest automatically, and every time I need
> > to check the result of #255 and #285 manually. That is annoying for me.
> I would think the right thing to do is to have xfstests make sure it
> understands that fallocate working with FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE does not
> imply that fallocate without the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag OR'ed in
> will work.
We already have this capabiity in xfstests via
_require_xfs_io_falloc_punch and _require_xfs_io_falloc. That,
however, doesn't mean the tests that use these calls do the correct
requirement checks. That's the problem with 255 - it doesn't call
As to 285, the seek_sanity_test does it's own check for seek
hole/data support, and error out if it fails. This needs to be
turned into an equivalent _require_seek_hole_data (e.g. by running
"seek_sanity_test -t" to test for support) and 285 needs to the call
the _require_seek_hole_data before running the test proper.
Please send patches to xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx