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.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 04:00:36PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> 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.
It looks that way to me... :)
> Is it really correct to *require* swapon to fail in this case?
Hm. TBH I was expecting an fpunch call or something to guarantee that
we even /have/ a sparse file, since (for all we know) a filesystem could
interpret "truncate up" to imply that blocks should be speculatively
allocated all the way to the new EOF.
But no, I wouldn't expect swap-over-NFS to know or care if the file is
sparse on the server. (Based on my limited knowledge of how that even
works...)
--D
> --b.