Re: Ext4 Punch Hole Support: Change summary and test case summary

[Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 02:29 -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2011-04-19, at 1:37 AM, Allison Henderson wrote:
> > \bBig Hole Test
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > A hole large hole is punched in a large file (exact file size=638169088 bytes, exact hole size = 638150422 bytes, offset = 6144 bytes), 
> > resulting in all but 5 blocks being punched out (2 in the front, 3 in the back).  This test case verifies that the code can properly
> > punch out a hole covering multiple extents.
> > 
> > This test is successful when the following conditions are met:
> > - File frag shows extents only for the first two blocks and the last 3 blocks
> > - The test file contains zeros from bytes 6144 to 638156566
> > (* ls and df is not measured here because some blocks will still be reserved
> > as index blocks causing the consumed space to be appear larger)
> 
> Shouldn't the remaining two extents fit inside the inode, so there is no need for index blocks, or does the extent removal code not shrink the index blocks?
> 

It seems so, the extent removal code today not shrink the index blocks 
> Cheers, Andreas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html