Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:00:36 -0400
To:     fstests@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: generic/495: swap on sparse file over NFS
Message-ID: <20190923200036.GA5085@fieldses.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
From:   bfields@fieldses.org (J. Bruce Fields)
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

I'm updating to a newer xfstests and seeing:

generic/495     - output mismatch (see
/root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/495.out.bad)
    --- tests/generic/495.out   2019-09-18 17:28:00.834721480 -0400
    +++ /root/xfstests-dev/results//generic/495.out.bad 2019-09-20 13:34:01.1568
89741 -0400
    @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
     QA output created by 495
     File with holes
    -swapon: Invalid argument
     Empty swap file (only swap header)
     swapon: Invalid argument

If I understand correctly, it's requiring swapon to fail on a sparse
file, which isn't going to happen on NFS, where the sparsenes of the
file isn't really the client's concern.

Is it really correct to *require* swapon to fail in this case?

--b.