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" <[email protected]>
---
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.$$
--
1.7.12.rc0.22.gcdd159b
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
On 03/05/2013 11:59 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> As of Linux 3.9-rc1, ext4 will support the punch operation on file
> systems using indirect blocks, but it can not support the fallocate
> operation (since there is no way to mark a block as uninitialized
> using indirect block scheme). This caused test 255 to fail, since it
> only used _require_xfS_io_falloc_punch assuming that all file systems
> which supported punch can also support fallocate. Fix this.
>
> Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email protected]>
> ---
> 255 | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/255 b/255
> index 0083963..ae1d8e0 100755
> --- a/255
> +++ b/255
> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ _supported_fs generic
> _supported_os Linux
>
> _require_xfs_io_falloc_punch
> +_require_xfs_io_falloc
#rcj looks reasonable to me to add this requirement
> _require_xfs_io_fiemap
>
> testfile=$TEST_DIR/255.$$
>
Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
This patch has been committed.
Thanks
--Rich
commit 864688d368d6781c3f6d60bc55b5e3591953e462
Author: Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]>
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.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
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 <[email protected]>
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" <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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.$$
>
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 <[email protected]>
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs