From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fsx: Add fallocate collapse range operation Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:26:37 +1100 Message-ID: <20140403212637.GP17603@dastard> References: <1396452800-25775-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: =?utf-8?B?THVrw6HFoQ==?= Czerner Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:55:07PM +0200, Luk=C3=A1=C5=A1 Czerner wrote= : > On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Lukas Czerner wrote: >=20 > > Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:33:19 +0200 > > From: Lukas Czerner > > To: xfs@oss.sgi.com > > Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, > > Lukas Czerner > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] fsx: Add fallocate collapse range operation > >=20 > > This commit adds fallocate FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE support for fsx= =2E >=20 > Btw, this actually makes the fsx fail on ext4 and xfs after a while. > I was trying to find a problem in fsx itself but I think it is > actually ok. That means that we could possibly have bugs in ext4 and > xfs collapse range implementation. More eyes are needed on this! No surprise, really. As it is, your previous ZERO_RANGE additions caused problems for XFS, and those are mostly fixed in the 6 patch series I sent before LSFMM. Hence I wouldn't be surprised if that's what you are seeing (on XFs, at least) and it's not actually COLLAPSE_RANGE that is causing problems... Cheers, Dave. --=20 Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html