From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, Akshay Lal <alal@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Test to ensure that the EOFBLOCK_FL gets set/unset correctly.
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:17:03 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100828001703.GK705@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C785254.2020708@sandeen.net>
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 07:03:32PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure this really is a generic test - it's testing an ext4
> > specific bug. We've got other generic tests that exercise fallocate,
> > and some filesystems (like XFS) don't have special bits to say there
> > are extents beyond EOF and checking a filesystem repeated won't
> > report any problems. So perhaps if should be '_supported_fs ext4'
>
>
> Oops we're giving conflicting advice :) I thought a test that
> exercises blocks-past-eof-filling at various boundaries made
> sense in general, even if the specific regression test is ext4-specific.
>
> Seems like at least ocfs2/btrfs might benefit from the basic exercise,
> so I was recommending that it be generic.
Ok, that seems reasonable. If the bug results in filesystem
corruption, then maybe just relying on the check at the end of the
test to fail it would be appropriate?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-28 0:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-27 20:33 [PATCH] Test to ensure that the EOFBLOCK_FL gets set/unset correctly. As found by Theodore Ts'o: If a 128K file is falloc'ed using the KEEP_SIZE flag, and then write exactly 128K, the EOFBLOCK_FL doesn't get cleared correctly. This forces e2fsck to complain about that inode Akshay Lal
2010-08-27 21:49 ` [PATCH] Test to ensure that the EOFBLOCK_FL gets set/unset correctly Eric Sandeen
2010-08-27 23:10 ` Akshay Lal
2010-08-27 23:23 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-08-27 23:32 ` [PATCH] Test to ensure that the EOFBLOCK_FL gets set/unset correctly. As found by Theodore Ts'o: If a 128K file is falloc'ed using the KEEP_SIZE flag, and then write exactly 128K, the EOFBLOCK_FL doesn't get cleared correctly. This forces e2fsck to complain about that inode Dave Chinner
2010-08-28 0:03 ` [PATCH] Test to ensure that the EOFBLOCK_FL gets set/unset correctly Eric Sandeen
2010-08-28 0:17 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2010-08-28 0:23 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-08-30 17:33 ` Akshay Lal
2010-09-07 18:23 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-09-07 19:58 ` Akshay Lal
2010-09-08 18:51 ` Eric Sandeen
2010-09-08 18:52 ` Akshay Lal
2010-09-08 19:11 ` Eric Sandeen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100828001703.GK705@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=alal@google.com \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox