From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfstests: add a new test case for ext4 indirect-based file Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:37:42 -0500 Message-ID: <51494B26.6020204@sandeen.net> References: <1363683183-7392-1-git-send-email-wenqing.lz@taobao.com> <51489267.7080202@sandeen.net> <20130320054555.GB4017@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Zheng Liu Return-path: Received: from sandeen.net ([63.231.237.45]:37585 "EHLO sandeen.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752020Ab3CTFhp (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:37:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130320054555.GB4017@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 3/20/13 12:45 AM, Zheng Liu wrote: >>> +f6aeca13ec49e5b266cd1c913cd726e3 >>> > > + 12. unwritten -> data -> unwritten >> > >> > It's a little odd that the output contains "unwritten" when this test >> > is explicitly for testing *without* unwritten extents. Should this be >> > cleaned up a little in common.punch, maybe? > I will try to define a new function called _test_indirect_punch() to > test punching hole without unwritten extent. It's just the helper which prints "unwritten" regardless of what is passed as "$alloc_cmd" to _test_generic_punch, right... so there's nothing wrong with the test, really - it's just odd output. I'm not sure it's worth a big copy & paste just to change the output text, but if you can think of something simple to clean it up, it might be worth it. -Eric