XFS Test Case:252 - Shows Wrong Output

[Amit Sahrawat]

What if we modify this *_require_xfs_io_falloc_punch()? T*o check whether
"Hole" is created or not? This seems valid point for checking punch Support.

Thanks & Regards,
Amit Sahrawat



On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Amit Sahrawat <amit.sahrawat83 at gmail.com>wrote:

> This is linked with new feature.. Add punch support, although the code
> existed before also, but the 'punch' has been specifically handled through
> cmd = XFS_IOC_UNRESVP.
>
> Also, *fallocate* is moved out from  *'xfs_iops.c'* to 'file operations'
> in *xfs_file.c*, which handles the case for
>
> if (mode & ~(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE))
>                return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> ...
> if(mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)
>                 cmd = XFS_IOC_UNRESVSP;
> ...
> Now, for old kernels, how to make sure that this test case does not execute
> or return meaningful error? without changing the kernel code it will not
> return error;
> Since, *FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE *this is true and the command work with
> XFS_IOC_RESVP.
>
> Please suggest.
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Amit Sahrawat
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Amit Sahrawat <amit.sahrawat83 at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Fortunately or Unfortunately I have 2.6.31(x86) and 2.6.35.13(ARM) and
>> both do not support "fpunch". As per your earlier mail - 2.6.35.y does not
>> support "fpunch" so I though of trying on 2.6.31.y.
>>
>> I will check out for the return errors in this condition and will update
>> more on this.
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Amit Sahrawat
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Dave Chinner <david at fromorbit.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21:26AM +0530, Amit Sahrawat wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > *PLATFORM      -- Linux/i686 localhost 2.6.31.5-127.fc12.i686.PAE*
>>>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> >
>>> > The output as per the command mentioned by you:
>>> > [root at localhost xfstests-2011-05-11]# xfs_io -f -c "truncate 20k" -c
>>> "falloc
>>> > 0 20k" -c "pwrite 0k 8k" -c "fs
>>> > ync" -c "pwrite 12k 8k" -c "fsync" -c "fpunch 4k 12k" -c "fiemap -v"
>>> > /media/c/newfile
>>> > wrote 8192/8192 bytes at offset 0
>>> > 8 KiB, 2 ops; 0.0000 sec (434.028 MiB/sec and 111111.1111 ops/sec)
>>> > command "fs
>>> > ync" not found
>>> > wrote 8192/8192 bytes at offset 12288
>>> > 8 KiB, 2 ops; 0.0000 sec (977 MiB/sec and 250000.0000 ops/sec)
>>> > /media/c/newfile:
>>> > * EXT: FILE-OFFSET      BLOCK-RANGE      TOTAL FLAGS
>>> >    0: [0..15]:         176..191            16   0x0
>>> >    1: [16..23]:        192..199             8 0x800
>>> >    2: [24..39]:        200..215            16   0x1
>>> > *
>>>
>>> The fpunch command did not punch the range out.
>>>
>>> Amit, once again you're testing on a kernel (2.6.31) that does not
>>> support the punch operation. As I suggested previously, you need to
>>> find out why the fpunch command is not returning an error as that is
>>> root cause of your failures.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Dave.
>>> --
>>> Dave Chinner
>>> david at fromorbit.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/attachments/20110623/35c6f12b/attachment.htm>