From: Omar Sandoval Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: add regression tests for ^extents punch hole Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:03:56 -0800 Message-ID: <20150225030356.GA6880@mew.dhcp4.washington.edu> References: <20150224220719.GD4251@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Theodore Ts'o , =?utf-8?B?THVrw6HFoQ==?= Czerner , Dave Chinner , Eric Sandeen Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150224220719.GD4251@dastard> <20150225002437.GB3782@thunk.org> Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 07:24:37PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > I suspect our current generic fsstress and fsx tests would catch this > already, and what I need to do is to make sure I add ext3/1k to my > test configurations (currently I test an ext3 configuration, and a 1k > block configuration, but I don't currently test ext3/1k together). > That would probably round out my full test iteration to a very > pleasing 24 hours or so, which is fine, although I wouldn't want it t= o > take much longer than that. >=20 Actually, this issue isn't specific to 1k blocks, so I wouldn't count o= n it :) That block size in my tests is an artifact of the initial reproducer Lukas had (generic/270 on ext3 with 1k blocks). It just so happens that the start/len arguments fsstress chooses for punch hole operations in that setup straddles the indirect tree levels in the wron= g ways. On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 03:58:06PM +0100, Luk=C3=A1=C5=A1 Czerner wrote= : > Omar, can you make the test generic and can this be reproduced on 4k > block size ? If not, can you make a generic reproducer which does > not depend on the block size ? >=20 > Also if we want to include the special case for ext4, we need to > have a function which allows us to alter the mkfs options without > completely overriding the user specified options. I think that there > is something like that for xfs, Omar can you do that for ext4 as > well ? >=20 > Thanks! > -Lukas >=20 >=20 No problem, I'll have a go at it. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:07:19AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > It's built into the _scratch_mkfs_xfs wrapper, where if the test > supplies extra options and that conflicts with the CLI supplied > options it drops the CLI specific options and just uses the test > options. >=20 > I've mentioned this specificly in the past, too. i.e. that all > _scratch_mkfs_$FSTYP wrappers should be handling CLI vs test > specific options like this.... :/ >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Dave. >=20 I'll take that into account. Thanks, everyone! --=20 Omar