Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>]

On 3/5/13 11:59 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> As of Linux 3.9-rc1, ext4 will support the punch operation on file
> systems using indirect blocks, but it can not support the fallocate
> operation (since there is no way to mark a block as uninitialized
> using indirect block scheme).  This caused test 255 to fail, since it
> only used _require_xfS_io_falloc_punch assuming that all file systems
> which supported punch can also support fallocate.  Fix this.

Seems fine to avoid the incorrect failure, so as far as that goes:

Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>

But we probably can & should still test punch in this situation,
so we need a new test to exercise that I guess.

-Eric

> Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
> ---
>  255 | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/255 b/255
> index 0083963..ae1d8e0 100755
> --- a/255
> +++ b/255
> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ _supported_fs generic
>  _supported_os Linux
>  
>  _require_xfs_io_falloc_punch
> +_require_xfs_io_falloc
>  _require_xfs_io_fiemap
>  
>  testfile=$TEST_DIR/255.$$
>