From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p5S5fhYT183074 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:41:43 -0500 Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A9D6A14F8795 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com (e37.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.158]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id VTbZk7ngExYmuB7R for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by e37.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p5S5caqp018570 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:38:36 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p5S5fE7d169228 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:41:35 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p5RNTuxB021646 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:29:57 -0600 From: Allison Henderson Subject: [PATCH 0/2 v6] XFS TESTS: Add ENOSPC Punch Hole Test Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:32:41 -0700 Message-Id: <1309239163-3975-1-git-send-email-achender@linux.vnet.ibm.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Cc: Allison Henderson Hi All, This is another set I sent out a while ago, but I didnt see it show up on the lists, so I am resending this one too. The work in this patch is a continuation from a previous patch set that has been partially accepted, so I thought I should retain the v6. This patch set adds the ENOSPC test that was used for ext4 punch hole testing. This test will verify that a hole can be punched even when the disk is full. Reserved blocks should be used to complete the operation when there is not blocks to further fragment the file. Because punching a hole does not always require extra blocks, there needs to be serveal iterations of punching holes, and then filling the file system to 100% usage before it is forced to grow the tree in order to handle the fragmentation. The growing of the tree is what would cause ENOSPC if not for the use of reserved blocks. I could use some opinions on this patch set becuase I am not sure if other filesystems handle their punch holes in the same way. Although xfs appears to pass the test, should this test be an ext4 only test? Thx! Allison Henderson (2): XFS TESTS: Move su routines in 123 to common.rc XFS TESTS: Add ENOSPC Hole Punch Test 123 | 24 ------------------------ common.rc | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ group | 1 + 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs