Re: [PATCH v5 06/10] xfs: add XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS ioctl

Dave Chinner
2012-10-15T23:47:30Z

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 05:46:26PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Brian,
>
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 06:35:14PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On 10/11/2012 10:13 AM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > Hey Brian,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 10:17:12AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > >> The XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS ioctl allows users to invoke an EOFBLOCKS
> > >> scan. The xfs_eofblocks structure is defined to support the command
> > >> parameters (scan mode).
> > >
> > > It would help to have an xfstest to exercise this ioctl to pull in with this
> > > series. Do you have any code that could be wrangled into a test case?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, makes sense. I have some very basic test code I could put somewhere
> > to invoke the ioctl(). One of the questions I've been meaning to ask is
> > whether it would be relevant for that code to live in a common tool,
> > such as adding a new command to xfs_io. Then perhaps create an xfstests
> > test using that. Thoughts?
>
> IMO you are right on the mark. xfs_io is a great place for this.
>
> > FYI, I have a few other things on my plate at the moment so
> > unfortunately it will be a bit before I can get back to XFS work... But
> > I'm fine with the set pending until I can come up with some test
> > coverage if that is preferable, of course.
>
> I do think it is preferable to have a test case go in with the code where
> possible. Since you don't mind waiting a bit, that seems to be the way to go.
> The other option could be to look for a volunteer to work on the test. ;)

FWIW, given the background cleanup code can be trivially verified to
work (open, apend, close, repeat, wait 5 minutes) and is the
functionality that is needed in mainline, having something to test
the ioctls should not stop the patchset from being merged.

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com