From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECC482034D8EB for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:50:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:56:22 -0700 From: Ross Zwisler Subject: Re: [ndctl PATCH] ndctl, test: kill usage of fallocate in firmware-update.sh Message-ID: <20180223215622.GA3413@linux.intel.com> References: <151936916209.18166.8915957818264326430.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <20180223205851.GB7750@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Dan Williams Cc: linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org List-ID: On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:45:40PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Ross Zwisler > wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:59:22PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > >> The 'fallocate -l 196608 $image' step in the test fails when $image is > >> on an NFS mount. Use dd instead to create a sparse file. We do not need > >> to allocate anything since we are only writing zeros. > >> > >> Cc: Dave Jiang > >> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams > >> --- > >> test/firmware-update.sh | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/test/firmware-update.sh b/test/firmware-update.sh > >> index 0d5bcdb3cc42..173647218c28 100755 > >> --- a/test/firmware-update.sh > >> +++ b/test/firmware-update.sh > >> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ detect() > >> > >> do_tests() > >> { > >> - fallocate -l 196608 $image > >> + dd if=/dev/zero of=$image bs=1 count=1 skip=196607 > >> $ndctl update-firmware -d $dev -f $image > >> } > > > > Hmm, I'm not seeing this failure in my NFS based setup. Out of curiosity, do > > you know why it's failing? Some difference in our NFS configs? > > Probably, here are my mount options: > > root on / type nfs4 > (rw,relatime,vers=4.0,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,namlen=255,hard,proto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,clientaddr=192.168.100.127,local_lock=none,addr=192.168.100.1) > > > Anyway, this seems fine, but > > > > fallocate -l 196608 $image > > > > does the same thing and seems a little simpler, IMO. > > Not simpler if it randomly fails depending on the filesystem, and > there is no need to allocate that space since we're just creating a > file full of zeros. sorry, I meant "truncate -s 196608 $image". Anyway, this is fine with either dd or truncate. I agree that not actually reserving filesystem space is a win. Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm