Re: [RESEND][PATCH 2/2 v2] ext4: let us fully support punching hole feature in fallocate

[Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:32:01PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 03:16:21PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > From: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@taobao.com>
> > 
> > After adding indirect punching hole feature, we need to enable it in fallocate.
> > For this purpose, some sanity checks need to be adjusted.  Currently we need to
> > check FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag before other sanity checks.
> 
> I've folded these two patches into one since the first patch in this
> series since there won't be any way to exercise the new code paths
> until we enable this in fallocate(), and it doesn't really change
> existing code paths.  If it did make huge changes in the normal code
> path, it might be useful to keep the two commits separate, but that's
> not the case here.

Thanks for pointing out. :-)

> 
> Anyway, they look good so I've checked them into my tree.  I'm
> currently kicking off a test run to make sure there aren't any
> problems except for the test 255 failure when testing w/o extents, but
> I don't really anticipate any issues.

I wonder that maybe we need to submit a patch to let xfstest understand
that a filesystem supports extents or not because after applied this
patch indirect-based file in ext4 has supported seek_data/hole and hole
punching.  I usually run xfstest automatically, and every time I need
to check the result of #255 and #285 manually.  That is annoying for me.

Regards,
                                                - Zheng