[PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255

[Zheng Liu]

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 at redhat.com>
> 
> 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