From: Zheng Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:52:26 +0800 Message-ID: <20130306165226.GA3454@gmail.com> References: <1362506382-26974-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <51376A61.6060807@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ext4 Developers List , Theodore Ts'o , xfs@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51376A61.6060807@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org 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 > > 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 xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs