xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in t

To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255
From: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:51:54 -0600
Cc: <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1362506382-26974-1-git-send-email-tytso@xxxxxxx>
References: <1362506382-26974-1-git-send-email-tytso@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1
On 03/05/2013 11:59 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
As of Linux 3.9-rc1, ext4 will support the punch operation on file
systems using indirect blocks, but it can not support the fallocate
operation (since there is no way to mark a block as uninitialized
using indirect block scheme).  This caused test 255 to fail, since it
only used _require_xfS_io_falloc_punch assuming that all file systems
which supported punch can also support fallocate.  Fix this.

Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
---
  255 | 1 +
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/255 b/255
index 0083963..ae1d8e0 100755
--- a/255
+++ b/255
@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ _supported_fs generic
  _supported_os Linux

  _require_xfs_io_falloc_punch
+_require_xfs_io_falloc
#rcj looks reasonable to me to add this requirement
  _require_xfs_io_fiemap

  testfile=$TEST_DIR/255.$$


Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>

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