Re: [PATCH] ltp/fsx.c: Ignore unsupported keep_size flag even if it's specified by --replay-ops

[Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On 2020/1/6 16:29, Xiao Yang wrote:
> On 2020/1/3 16:26, Eryu Guan wrote:
>> I proposed a similar fix back in 2017[1], but Amir didn't like it
>> because my patch (and your patch) ignored keep_size silently (newly
>> generated ops list was different than the one fed to --replay-ops).
>>
>> I proposed a new version in last Oct[2], which will record such ops as
>> skipped in the generated ops list, and Brian suggested to add a switch
>> to control the behavior if we want to fail fsx on unsupported ops. But I
>> didn't have time to work on it since then..
>>
>> Would you like to help implement the switch Brian suggested based on my
>> second patch? Then I can apply my v2 patch&  your switch patch.
> Hi Eryu,
>
> After reading current fsx code, it will skip all unsupported ops(e.g. 
> punch_hole, zero_range,
> collapse_range) automatically even if they are specified by --replay-ops.
>
> Why do we need to add a switch for keep size?
Hi Eryu,

Do you mean that we should add a switch for all unsupported 
ops(punch_hole, zero_range, keep_size and so on)?

Thanks,
Xiao Yang
>
> Thanks,
> Xiao Yang
>
>
> .
>