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 p4L3vCIn128293 for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 22:57:12 -0500 Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 9574BCFB4A0 for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 20:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id mgPKKegB7KodkPAa for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 20:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 13:57:04 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [XFS Tests Punch Hole 2/3 v3] XFS TESTS: Add Fallocate Punch Hole Test Routines Message-ID: <20110521035704.GW32466@dastard> References: <4DD43300.6010908@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110519013144.GF32466@dastard> <4DD560CF.3040706@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110519235601.GL32466@dastard> <4DD5C242.3010708@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4DD70B5B.6090400@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DD70B5B.6090400@linux.vnet.ibm.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: Allison Henderson Cc: linux-fsdevel , Eric Sandeen , Ext4 Developers List , xfs-oss On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 05:46:19PM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote: > On 5/19/2011 6:22 PM, Allison Henderson wrote: > >Also, there was one more test that I meant to be a part of this > >collection, but I was not finished with it at the time I submitted the > >patch for feedback. Basically it checks to see if a hole can still be > >punched out when the disk is full. In ext4 this is allowable because > >reserved space is used to allow the operation to proceed where it would > >have otherwise failed. I'm not sure if this is also ext4 specific > >though. Would this be another candidate for adding to 252? Thx! > > I just didnt want this question to get washed away in the traffic. > I am working on an updated patch set, should I include the extra > test case? Thx! Yes, though probably not in the _generic_test_punch function. And extra case specific to 252 that does something like: umount SCRATCH_DEV make a small filesystem scratch_mount prealloc to ENOSPC punch Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs