xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 15/19] mkfs: don't treat files as though they are block devic

To: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/19] mkfs: don't treat files as though they are block devices
From: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:43:21 +0200
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1461231593-31294-16-git-send-email-jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1461231593-31294-1-git-send-email-jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> <1461231593-31294-16-git-send-email-jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>

THIS PATCH HAS KNOWN ISSUES - it fails xfs/206 and xfs/216 tests, as it
shrinks a file instead just not using it entirely, when -d size is used.

âSo the shrinking is happening here:
3127 Â Â Â Â/*
3128 Â Â Â Â * If the data area is a file, then grow it out to its final size
3129 Â Â Â Â * so that the reads for the end of the device in the mount code
3130 Â Â Â Â * will succeed.
3131 Â Â Â Â */
3132 Â Â Â Âif (xi.disfile && ftruncate64(xi.dfd, dblocks * blocksize) < 0) {â
Â

Before the patch, xi.disfile was 0 and so it didn't shrink the file to the size of the new FS.
Now, what is the correct solve to this? Tests are written for the old behaviour, but this shrinking seems to be an intentional thing.
It seems that the FS works ok even when this truncating is not applied, so I think that I should remove this chunk (or change it to xi.dcreate=1 only), and keep the old behaviour.

What do you think about it, guys?

Cheers,
Jan



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