| Message ID | 1362506382-26974-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 03/05/2013 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. > > Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> > --- > 255 | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/255 b/255 > index 0083963..ae1d8e0 100755 > --- a/255 > +++ b/255 > @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ _supported_fs generic > _supported_os Linux > > _require_xfs_io_falloc_punch > +_require_xfs_io_falloc #rcj looks reasonable to me to add this requirement > _require_xfs_io_fiemap > > testfile=$TEST_DIR/255.$$ > Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@sgi.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
This patch has been committed.
Thanks
--Rich
commit 864688d368d6781c3f6d60bc55b5e3591953e462
Author: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Date: Tue Mar 5 17:59:42 2013 +0000
xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255
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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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@redhat.com> But we probably can & should still test punch in this situation, so we need a new test to exercise that I guess. -Eric > Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> > --- > 255 | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/255 b/255 > index 0083963..ae1d8e0 100755 > --- a/255 > +++ b/255 > @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ _supported_fs generic > _supported_os Linux > > _require_xfs_io_falloc_punch > +_require_xfs_io_falloc > _require_xfs_io_fiemap > > testfile=$TEST_DIR/255.$$ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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@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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/255 b/255 index 0083963..ae1d8e0 100755 --- a/255 +++ b/255 @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ _supported_fs generic _supported_os Linux _require_xfs_io_falloc_punch +_require_xfs_io_falloc _require_xfs_io_fiemap testfile=$TEST_DIR/255.$$
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. Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> --- 255 | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)