From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56487 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751527AbcGTMkk (ORCPT <rfc822;fstests@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:40:40 -0400
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 20:40:38 +0800
From: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic/071: require falloc -k
Message-ID: <20160720124038.GX27776@eguan.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <1468829204-24593-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de>
 <20160718084714.GD27776@eguan.usersys.redhat.com>
 <20160719041718.GA17223@lst.de>
 <7bd28494-84e9-1458-5e28-893d02dd5c06@sandeen.net>
 <20160719083047.GA21083@lst.de>
 <20160720045217.GT27776@eguan.usersys.redhat.com>
 <07f34424-ed2c-4f5f-991b-91981367c1a5@sandeen.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <07f34424-ed2c-4f5f-991b-91981367c1a5@sandeen.net>
Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, fstests@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <fstests@vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:34:43PM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/19/16 9:52 PM, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:30:47AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:49:57PM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>> Some tests actually do run xfs_io on a real file, but we probably
> >>> don't want to go that way.
> >>>
> >>> The test for finding it in help output seems way too specific,
> >>>
> >>> _require_xfs_io_command "pwrite" "-Z"
> >>>
> >>> fails as well because it doesn't hit the specific format in
> >>> the grep.
> >>>
> >>> What if we loosen up the test; is this too loose? (look for param
> >>> preceded by whitespace or square bracket)
> >>
> >> Seems like it's not loose enough as it still tries to run the test
> >> on NFS.
> > 
> > For this NFSv4.2 case, I think we have to actually run "falloc -k" to
> > check whether the underlying fs supports (FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE) or not.
> > 
> > Current check in _require_xfs_io_command only checks whether xfs_io
> > knows the given option, not the underlying fs. And in this NFSv4.2 case,
> > NFSv4.2 supports fallocate(2), and xfs_io falloc command knows "-k"
> > option, so test runs on NFS.
> 
> Oh right, sorry.  So, this?
> 
> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
> index 6add69e..f087813 100644
> --- a/common/rc
> +++ b/common/rc
> @@ -1880,7 +1880,7 @@ _require_xfs_io_command()
>  	testfile=$TEST_DIR/$$.xfs_io
>  	case $command in
>  	"falloc" )
> -		testio=`$XFS_IO_PROG -F -f -c "falloc 0 1m" $testfile 2>&1`
> +		testio=`$XFS_IO_PROG -F -f -c "falloc $param 0 1m" $testfile 2>&1`
>  		;;
>  	"fpunch" | "fcollapse" | "zero" | "fzero" | "finsert" )
>  		testio=`$XFS_IO_PROG -F -f -c "pwrite 0 20k" -c "fsync" \

Yes, this works, along with your first update. Or further more, we can
set param="" in the "falloc" case after actually running it? Since we've
already tested the option, no need to check the help message again.

Thanks,
Eryu