@@ -49,6 +49,46 @@ if [ -z "$TEST_IMG_FILE" ]; then
TEST_IMG_FILE=$TEST_IMG
fi
+# Test whether we are running on a broken XFS version. There is this
+# bug:
+
+# $ rm -f foo
+# $ touch foo
+# $ block_size=4096 # Your FS's block size
+# $ fallocate -o $((block_size / 2)) -l $block_size foo
+# $ LANG=C xfs_bmap foo | grep hole
+# 1: [8..15]: hole
+#
+# The problem is that the XFS driver rounds down the offset and
+# rounds up the length to the block size, but independently. As
+# such, it only allocates the first block in the example above,
+# even though it should allocate the first two blocks (because our
+# request is to fallocate something that touches both the first
+# two blocks).
+#
+# This means that when you then write to the beginning of the
+# second block, the disk usage of the first two blocks grows.
+#
+# That is precisely what fallocate() promises, though: That when you
+# write to an area that you have fallocated, no new blocks will have
+# to be allocated.
+
+touch "$TEST_IMG_FILE"
+# Assuming there is no FS with a block size greater than 64k
+fallocate -o 65535 -l 2 "$TEST_IMG_FILE"
+len0=$(get_image_size_on_host)
+
+# Write to something that in theory we have just fallocated
+# (Thus, the on-disk size should not increase)
+poke_file "$TEST_IMG_FILE" 65536 42
+len1=$(get_image_size_on_host)
+
+if [ $len1 -gt $len0 ]; then
+ _notrun "the test filesystem's fallocate() is broken"
+fi
+
+rm -f "$TEST_IMG_FILE"
+
# Generally, we create some image with or without existing preallocation and
# then resize it. Then we write some data into the image and verify that its
# size does not change if we have used preallocation.