From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: add regression tests for ^extents punch hole Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:46:20 +1100 Message-ID: <20150223224620.GL12722@dastard> References: <4c557308eb4e62752dc8b513495cb6d46ca5775d.1424730653.git.osandov@osandov.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Omar Sandoval Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4c557308eb4e62752dc8b513495cb6d46ca5775d.1424730653.git.osandov@osandov.com> Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > Linux commit 6f30b7e37a82 (ext4: fix indirect punch hole corruption) > fixes several bugs in the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE implementation for an > ext4 filesystem with indirect blocks. > > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval > --- > tests/ext4/005 | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/ext4/005.out | 29 ++++++++++++++ > tests/ext4/group | 1 + > 3 files changed, 145 insertions(+) > create mode 100755 tests/ext4/005 > create mode 100644 tests/ext4/005.out What's ext4 specific about this test apart from the mkfs parameter? Shouldn't it be generic and so test all the filesystems behave the same? i.e. when someone then runs # MKFS_OPTIONS="-b size=1k -O ^extents" ./check -g auto That will exercise this specific regression fix, not to mention give much, much better test coverage of that configuration than just making a single test use that config... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com