From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zheng Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] xfstests: seek data/hole and hole punching improvements Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:42:25 +0800 Message-ID: <20130206024225.GA11254@gmail.com> References: <1359358371-21411-1-git-send-email-wenqing.lz@taobao.com> <511127C2.2010409@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o , Zheng Liu , Jie Liu To: Mark Tinguely Return-path: Received: from mail-da0-f50.google.com ([209.85.210.50]:47118 "EHLO mail-da0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754612Ab3BFC2H (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2013 21:28:07 -0500 Received: by mail-da0-f50.google.com with SMTP id h15so373878dan.9 for ; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:28:05 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <511127C2.2010409@sgi.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:39:46AM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 01/28/13 01:32, Zheng Liu wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >Here is my first try to improve seek data/hole and hole punching test > >cases in xfstests. The key issue in 255 and 285 is that they assume that > >all file systems that are tested support unwritten extent preallocation. > >Before 3.8 kernel it is correct. But now ext4 file system has ability > >to seek data/hole and punch a hole for a file w/o unwritten extent. So > >it is time to improve these test cases. > > > >In this patch series it calls _require_xfs_io_falloc in 255 and 285 to > >make sure that unwritten extent is supprted by tested file system. A > >new argument '-t' is added into seek_sanity_test to check a file system > >that supports seek data/hole or not. In the mean time _require_seek_data_hole > >is defined to be used by all tests. > > > >Further two new test cases are created to test seek data/hole and hole > >punching w/o unwritten extent, which do the same thing like 255 and 285 > >except that they don't do some test cases which are related to unwritten > >extent. > > > >Any comments or feedbacks are welcome. > > > >Thanks, > > - Zheng > > Hi Zheng, > > I wonder if reviving the idea of putting the SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE > feature into xfs_io would simplify the existing tests and future ones. > > My last version of the SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE xfs_io extension should be > sightly changed to make the hole only test output to be consistent with > the data test; namely, it should end with an EOF entry. > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-11/msg00106.html > > I know there will be some result filtering needed for holes which the C > program based tests already provide. Hi Mark, Thanks for your comment. I am fine with your idea of using xfs_io to seek data/hole. In next version I will try to use xfs_io to implement _require_seek_data_hole(). Regards, - Zheng