On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:49:21PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 30-05-13 15:05:02, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > On 5/30/13 3:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Thu 30-05-13 08:48:24, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > >> On 5/30/13 7:45 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >>> Test whether SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA works correctly with offsets over
> > >>> 4GB.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hm, should we add 2T as well while we're at it?
> > >>
> > >> (and does this cause any new failures?)
> > > Yes, ext4 is broken. I've sent fixes for it yesterday. I'm not sure what
> > Argh, sorry I forgot that. I just want to be careful about more rigorous
> > tests making it look like we have regressions in the code.
> > > exactly would overflow at 2T ... block counts if signed int is used and
> > > blocksize is 1KB?
> > Hum ok, where'd I come up with 2T? :) never mind that maybe, unless
> > there are other potential trouble points we should add (8T? 16T for
> > filesystems that can handle it?)
> Yeah, so 8T + something might be interesting and both ext4 & xfs should
> handle that fine. 16T + something might be interesting for xfs if it
> supports that size. I'll update this patch with these checks.
What boundary traversal are we trying to test at these high
I mean, I can understand wanting to confirm they work, but there's
no 32 bit variable boundary in the seek code at 8/16TB that needs to
be specifically test is there? i.e. is it just testing the same case
as the 8GB case?