xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: possible dev branch regression - xfstest 285/1k

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: possible dev branch regression - xfstest 285/1k
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:47:18 +1100
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Eric Whitney <enwlinux@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130318231233.GQ6369@dastard>
References: <20130315222818.GA16100@wallace> <20130316150923.GA18589@xxxxxxxxx> <20130317030648.GA14225@xxxxxxxxx> <51473C8B.5070509@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130318170927.GA5639@xxxxxxxxx> <51475043.4010505@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130318204133.GE22182@xxxxxxx> <20130318231233.GQ6369@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:12:33AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 03:41:33PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:34:59PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > > On 3/18/13 12:09 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:10:51AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > still run with default settings.
> 
> And when the default settings change, or some other bug fix comes
> along?
> 
> So, let's step back a moment and ask ourselves what the test is
> actaully trying to test. zero-out is not what it is trying to test,
> nor is it trying to test specific file layouts. This is a basic
> *defragmenter* sanity test. SO, we're testing 2 things:

Sorry about this - I've mixed up my threads about ext4 having
problems with zero-out being re-enabled. I thought this was a
cross-post of the 218 issue....

However, the same reasoning can be applied to 285 - the file sizes,
the size of the holes and the size of the data is all completely
arbitrary. If we make the holes in the files larger, then the
zero-out problem simply goes away.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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