From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p68HuHXm259261 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:56:17 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfstests: fix fsx fpunch test to actually test for fpunch From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <1310086426-30605-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> References: <1310086426-30605-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1310086426-30605-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:56:12 -0500 Message-ID: <1310147772.3024.22.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 10:53 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner > > The operation flags parameter to fallocate is the second parameter, > not the last. Hence the fpunch test is actually testing for falloc > support, not fpunch. Somebody needs a brown paper bag. > > Also, add a ftruncate call whenthe fpunch succeeds just in case the > file was not already zero sized. Failing to ensure we start with a > zero length file can cause read ops to fail size checks if they > occur before the file is written to be the main test loop. > > While there, observe the quiet flag the same as the falloc test > does and have them both emit the warning at the same error level. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner Looks good. Even if the arguments were in the right order, the length has to be greater than zero also. Reviewed-by: Alex Elder _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs