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 13:07:56 -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
This patch has been committed.

Thanks
--Rich

commit 864688d368d6781c3f6d60bc55b5e3591953e462
Author: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Date:   Tue Mar 5 17:59:42 2013 +0000

    xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255

    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.

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