From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, Akshay Lal <alal@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Test to ensure that the EOFBLOCK_FL gets set/unset correctly.
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:03:32 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C785254.2020708@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100827233216.GJ705@dastard>
Dave Chinner wrote:
> I'm not sure this really is a generic test - it's testing an ext4
> specific bug. We've got other generic tests that exercise fallocate,
> and some filesystems (like XFS) don't have special bits to say there
> are extents beyond EOF and checking a filesystem repeated won't
> report any problems. So perhaps if should be '_supported_fs ext4'
Oops we're giving conflicting advice :) I thought a test that
exercises blocks-past-eof-filling at various boundaries made
sense in general, even if the specific regression test is ext4-specific.
Seems like at least ocfs2/btrfs might benefit from the basic exercise,
so I was recommending that it be generic.
I don't think there is any other test that makes a point of
allocating X blocks past eof and then filling them exactly,
overwriting/extending past them, etc. Seems like a good addition
in general.
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-28 0:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-27 20:33 [PATCH] Test to ensure that the EOFBLOCK_FL gets set/unset correctly. As found by Theodore Ts'o: If a 128K file is falloc'ed using the KEEP_SIZE flag, and then write exactly 128K, the EOFBLOCK_FL doesn't get cleared correctly. This forces e2fsck to complain about that inode Akshay Lal
2010-08-27 21:49 ` [PATCH] Test to ensure that the EOFBLOCK_FL gets set/unset correctly Eric Sandeen
2010-08-27 23:10 ` Akshay Lal
2010-08-27 23:23 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-08-27 23:32 ` [PATCH] Test to ensure that the EOFBLOCK_FL gets set/unset correctly. As found by Theodore Ts'o: If a 128K file is falloc'ed using the KEEP_SIZE flag, and then write exactly 128K, the EOFBLOCK_FL doesn't get cleared correctly. This forces e2fsck to complain about that inode Dave Chinner
2010-08-28 0:03 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2010-08-28 0:17 ` [PATCH] Test to ensure that the EOFBLOCK_FL gets set/unset correctly Dave Chinner
2010-08-28 0:23 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-08-30 17:33 ` Akshay Lal
2010-09-07 18:23 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-09-07 19:58 ` Akshay Lal
2010-09-08 18:51 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-09-08 18:52 ` Akshay Lal
2010-09-08 19:11 ` Eric Sandeen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4C785254.2020708@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=alal@google.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.