Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] xfstests: fsx: add support for cluster size
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc:     fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com
References: <1587720830-11955-1-git-send-email-jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>
 <1587720830-11955-2-git-send-email-jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20200427172929.GL6740@magnolia>
From:   JeffleXu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>
Message-ID: <66363e66-9c89-b877-e8d5-830d2c100b3b@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:22:49 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200427172929.GL6740@magnolia>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 4/28/20 1:29 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 05:33:49PM +0800, Jeffle Xu wrote:
>> The offset and size should be aligned with cluster size when inserting
>> or collapsing range on ext4 with 'bigalloc' feature enabled. Currently
>> I can find only ext4 with this limitation.
> ocfs2 also has this magic, um, ability.
>
> As does xfs under certain circumstance (realtime volumes).
>
>> Since fsx should have no assumption of the underlying filesystem, and
>> thus add the '-u cluster_size' option. Tests can set this option when
>> the underlying filesystem is ext4 with bigalloc enabled.
> Do copyrange, clonerange, or deduperange have this problem? ;)


clonerange and deduperange are not supported in ext4, while copyrange
  and zerorange work as the range has no need to be aligned with cluster size
in these two situations.