From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Luk=E1=A8_Czerner?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for fallocate Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:50:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <1393355679-11160-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <20140316190820.GB14162@thunk.org> <20140317021909.GD14162@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: tytso@mit.edu Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47891 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932838AbaCQMux (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Mar 2014 08:50:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140317021909.GD14162@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 16 Mar 2014, tytso@mit.edu wrote: > Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:19:09 -0400 > From: tytso@mit.edu > To: Lukas Czerner > Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for fallocate > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 03:08:20PM -0400, tytso@MIT.EDU wrote: > > If I try running the "dev2" branch, without the xfstests collapse > > range branch pulled in, things are much better (so there's clearly a > > bug in the ZERO_RANGE code path), but there was still a few more > > errors than the baseline. I'm rerunning those tests so I can be sure > > that the results are repeatable. > > Running the tests with the dev2 branch, which includes all of the > ext4-specific ZERO_RANGE patches, we see a regression with shared/243 > with 4k and 1k block sizes (as well as 4k in no-journal mode): Oh, right. This fails because the test really should be deprecated since we already removed the check in e2fsck - see e2fsprogs commit 010dc7b90d97b93907cbf57b3b44f1c1cad234f6. In this patch I removed setting the EXT4_INODE_EOFBLOCKS, however I forgot the mention that in the description. Sorry about that. Now I am not sure how we want to handle this. Either having it as a part of this patch just update description, or having the EXT4_INODE_EOFBLOCKS removal from the fallocate as a separate patch, which probably make more sense to me. What would you prefer ? Thanks! -Lukas > > shared/243 3s ... [15:09:34] [15:09:35] [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see /results/results-4k/shared/243.out.bad) > --- tests/shared/243.out 2014-03-15 13:45:11.000000000 -0400 > +++ /results/results-4k/shared/243.out.bad 2014-03-16 15:09:35.470862837 -0400 > @@ -1,13 +1,3 @@ > QA output created by 243 > wrote 4096/4096 bytes at offset 0 > XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) > -wrote 4096/4096 bytes at offset 0 > -XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) > -wrote 40960/40960 bytes at offset 0 > -XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec) > ... > (Run 'diff -u tests/shared/243.out /results/results-4k/shared/243.out.bad' to see the entire diff) > > - Ted >