xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/4] xfstests: seek data/hole and hole punching improvements

To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] xfstests: seek data/hole and hole punching improvements
From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:42:25 +0800
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jie Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ZVHk/Hu0KOPXIet+tRaMYL3ROjeBReB3DcKswvUOatg=; b=Tkep2T4FJqjczMmHWYEWjCUWVCkWDqsG3oq/VTvO4jbj5NMmMes+9dGZ84nAeikG+Z Az4nijIJJ9Q/yBTQLDVZDStVb1Zuwf0z4HpxQ1dS1g9/EWK2GMXhV95rANMhiGMdM6X6 6uxP0jitI9aEE6UFqxrUyKcHcWWzpNB+XhDWRB4EKXROBWqBaIruQGCbXRURw+TkuGE3 Z+y06gpLRczan8fAqorjx/ZHJLCFRLYC40s52wS4gRd6jgbA/5NkKfv9jtF6FGMRYknh S4qEvTI6pnE4y3Pfrr2IjTsZBh/er4DZ5qzc5+Drl2pU8DilDjhaxnM4KrlZkt/Soj6C vsOw==
In-reply-to: <511127C2.2010409@xxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jie Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1359358371-21411-1-git-send-email-wenqing.lz@xxxxxxxxxx> <511127C2.2010409@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:39:46AM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 01/28/13 01:32, Zheng Liu wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Here is my first try to improve seek data/hole and hole punching test
> >cases in xfstests.  The key issue in 255 and 285 is that they assume that
> >all file systems that are tested support unwritten extent preallocation.
> >Before 3.8 kernel it is correct.  But now ext4 file system has ability
> >to seek data/hole and punch a hole for a file w/o unwritten extent.  So
> >it is time to improve these test cases.
> >
> >In this patch series it calls _require_xfs_io_falloc in 255 and 285 to
> >make sure that unwritten extent is supprted by tested file system.  A
> >new argument '-t' is added into seek_sanity_test to check a file system
> >that supports seek data/hole or not.  In the mean time 
> >_require_seek_data_hole
> >is defined to be used by all tests.
> >
> >Further two new test cases are created to test seek data/hole and hole
> >punching w/o unwritten extent, which do the same thing like 255 and 285
> >except that they don't do some test cases which are related to unwritten
> >extent.
> >
> >Any comments or feedbacks are welcome.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >                                             - Zheng
> 
> Hi Zheng,
> 
> I wonder if reviving the idea of putting the SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE
> feature into xfs_io would simplify the existing tests and future ones.
> 
> My last version of the SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE xfs_io extension should be
> sightly changed to make the hole only test output to be consistent with
> the data test; namely, it should end with an EOF entry.
> 
>       http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-11/msg00106.html
> 
> I know there will be some result filtering needed for holes which the C
> program based tests already provide.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your comment.  I am fine with your idea of using xfs_io to
seek data/hole.  In next version I will try to use xfs_io to implement
_require_seek_data_hole().

Regards,
                                                - Zheng

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