From: Joel Becker Subject: Re: [XFS Tests Punch Hole 2/3 v3] XFS TESTS: Add Fallocate Punch Hole Test Routines Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 18:41:51 -0700 Message-ID: <20110519014149.GA11278@noexit.corp.google.com> References: <4DD43300.6010908@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110519013144.GF32466@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Allison Henderson , xfs-oss , Ext4 Developers List , linux-fsdevel , Eric Sandeen To: Dave Chinner Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:35230 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754704Ab1ESBml (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2011 21:42:41 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110519013144.GF32466@dastard> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:31:44AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > +# > > +# This test is successful when the following conditions are met: > > +# - ls shows that the number of blocks occupied by the file > > +# has decreased by the number of blocks punched out. > > There's no guarantee that a filesystem will punch the number of > blocks you expect. Cluster allocated filesystems like ocfs2 are certainly going to punch some multiple of clusters, not exact blocks. Eg if the hole is punched in the middle of a cluster. Joel -- Life's Little Instruction Book #464 "Don't miss the magic of the moment by focusing on what's to come." http://www.jlbec.org/ jlbec@evilplan.org