From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A304C7F5F for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:58:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A47E304039 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e28smtp05.in.ibm.com (e28smtp05.in.ibm.com [122.248.162.5]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id C5DsF3L5fxAbAEsq (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp05.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 21:21:55 +0530 Received: from d28relay02.in.ibm.com (d28relay02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.59]) by d28dlp02.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A6EC394004D for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 21:28:00 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av02.in.ibm.com (d28av02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.64]) by d28relay02.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r7DFxVrV36503800 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 21:29:31 +0530 Received: from d28av02.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av02.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r7DFw8i8029539 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 21:28:08 +0530 From: chandan Subject: Re: [PATCH] _test_generic_punch: Extend $testfile's size to work with 64k block. Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 21:28:06 +0530 Message-ID: <1795219.CLAn9GhObP@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20130812011155.GL12779@dastard> References: <3326777.u9YeDIQiYF@localhost.localdomain> <20130812011155.GL12779@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: sekharan@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Hello Dave, > So, to do this properly, I'd suggest that the code needs to scale > the offset/size of the IO being done by the filesystem block size, > not use a fixed size. Using a filter on the bmap output to handle > the different block ranges will ensure everything works correctly > from a golden output POV, except for one thing - the md5sum. > Yes, we did try the approach of using variable block size and scaling the offset values in the filter function. But we got stuck working with md5sum (since we would need two sets of md5sums (with and without '-k' option) per block size). As suggested, I will be reposting the patch to use "_requires_le_4k_blocksize". chandan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs