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 p5MMvNhu127123 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:57:24 -0500 Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 954A6134C45E for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id JxJffGXQTqtLrDQD for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:57:18 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: XFS Test Case:252 - Shows Wrong Output Message-ID: <20110622225718.GU32466@dastard> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Amit Sahrawat Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 04:18:52PM +0530, Amit Sahrawat wrote: > Dear All, > ** > *Test Case:13 > * echo " 13. data -> unwritten -> data" > rm -f $testfile > $XFS_IO_PROG $xfs_io_opt -f -c "truncate 20k" \ > -c "$alloc_cmd 0 20k" \ > -c "pwrite 0k 8k" -c "fsync" \ > -c "pwrite 12k 8k" -c "fsync" \ > -c "$zero_cmd 4k 12k" \ > -c "$map_cmd -v" $testfile | $filter_cmd > [ $? -ne 0 ] && die_now > > *After executing individual case like this: > *testfile=/data/usb/sda3/252.testfile > > echo "13. data -> unwritten -> data" > rm -f $testfile > xfs_io -f -c "truncate 20k" -c \ > "falloc 0 20k" -c "pwrite 0k 8k" -c "fsync" -c "pwrite 12k 8k" -c \ > "fsync" -c "fpunch 4k 12k" -c "fiemap -v" $testfile | $filter_cmd > > *Original Output(Taken from 252.out): > * 13. data -> unwritten -> data > 0: [0..7]: data > 1: [8..31]: hole > 2: [32..39]: data > *Output in my case* > 13. data -> unwritten -> data > 0: [0..15]: data > 1: [16..23]: unwritten > 2: [24..39]: data FWIW, it would be much easier for us to understand your problem if you simply posted the output of a failing "check 252" (it's a diff of the output vs the golden output!) rather than a bunch of strange mangled script outputs from whatever wrapper you are using to run xfstests that nobody but you understand. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that 2.6.35.y doesn't support punching holes via the fallocate operation and so this check in the test: _require_xfs_io_falloc_punch is probably not detecting that punch is not supported correctly. Perhaps that is what you need to check first... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs