From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:10:09 -0600 Message-ID: <51376A61.6060807@redhat.com> References: <1362506382-26974-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, Ext4 Developers List To: "Theodore Ts'o" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58041 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750716Ab3CFQX5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Mar 2013 11:23:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1362506382-26974-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 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" > --- > 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.$$ >