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

To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255
From:	Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:52:26 +0800
Cc:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
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=JIFKxSE3dmLI7DpGuH7/7j534oiVLBmI9fqRKC1pink=; b=SeDRON9IrwdcTfVOZwG9wQ/RQPNI0K9N+TRaTVj7O5lPYBflswsaO13ZD4kmY/744I TrS49yLFv3AuYUfuLXO/avKu1EGQfJWGtfpPAWd/gZ5Z3Wk2zQwCap/14o3lq0mjXtSW AjywdGJA4vwZyn+aRXCb9/ApiNuXIevQs18yqXnk81r7+kalFUtUGM84fPk98TZYJbg3 HA1oUnFHTNh/MC/lwGby5L2yUiZKPeVjYcOKU2MHkkFoo4Y//reMMe5CZHt1HbMTVBBl sS28jB1BpOhgin4x6srPcs6fpp6+pQ+epzdek2QJwa1YDbGGMxJQYQ02/JEH1uS3i2/v vD6g==
In-reply-to:	<51376A61.6060807@xxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References:	<1362506382-26974-1-git-send-email-tytso@xxxxxxx> <51376A61.6060807@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent:	Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 10:10:09AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 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.

Hi Eric,

I have sent a patch set to add a test case for punching hole.  You can
find it in this link [1].  Sorry I don't finish the second version
according to Mark's comment.

1. http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg16234.html

Regards,
                                                - Zheng

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255, Theodore Ts'o Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255, Rich Johnston Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255, Rich Johnston Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255, Eric Sandeen Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255, Zheng Liu <=

Previous by Date:	Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255, Eric Sandeen
Next by Date:	Re: XFS filesystem corruption, Ric Wheeler
Previous by Thread:	Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255, Eric Sandeen
Next by Thread:	Re: [PATCH] xfstests 276: fix error 'FIBMAP: Invalid argument', Rich Johnston
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

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