[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: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:10:09 -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 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3
On 3/5/13 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.

Seems fine to avoid the incorrect failure, so as far as that goes:

Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>

But we probably can & should still test punch in this situation,
so we need a new test to exercise that I guess.


> 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
>  _require_xfs_io_fiemap
>  testfile=$TEST_DIR/255.$$

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