From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q45NbrOt017863 for ; Sat, 5 May 2012 18:37:53 -0500 Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ZDNggeAu7Ww7DzaQ for ; Sat, 05 May 2012 16:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 09:37:44 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: make 275 xfs specific. Message-ID: <20120505233744.GE25351@dastard> References: <1336230429-2939-1-git-send-email-tm@tao.ma> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1336230429-2939-1-git-send-email-tm@tao.ma> 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: Tao Ma Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:07:09PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote: > From: Tao Ma > > In my test with ext4, 275 can't pass because ext4 > can create a 8k file in the end not like what xfs > does. So make this test case xfs only for now. It's not an XFS specific test - it's a test that is supposed to test POSIX write behaviour. i.e. if the filesystem is full, and then you free 4k of space, then an 8k write should only be able to write 4k, yes? So doesn't a failure on ext4 indicate that there's something wrong with ext4 (either it's ENOSPC detection or the short write handling), not the test? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs