From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E29927F3F for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:47:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D069E304051 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:47:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id FpG3rjQuG3oc5FYc for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:47:18 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: possible dev branch regression - xfstest 285/1k Message-ID: <20130319014718.GV6369@dastard> References: <20130315222818.GA16100@wallace> <20130316150923.GA18589@gmail.com> <20130317030648.GA14225@thunk.org> <51473C8B.5070509@redhat.com> <20130318170927.GA5639@thunk.org> <51475043.4010505@redhat.com> <20130318204133.GE22182@sgi.com> <20130318231233.GQ6369@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130318231233.GQ6369@dastard> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Ben Myers Cc: Eric Whitney , Eric Sandeen , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o , xfs-oss On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:12:33AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 03:41:33PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:34:59PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > On 3/18/13 12:09 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:10:51AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > still run with default settings. > > And when the default settings change, or some other bug fix comes > along? > > So, let's step back a moment and ask ourselves what the test is > actaully trying to test. zero-out is not what it is trying to test, > nor is it trying to test specific file layouts. This is a basic > *defragmenter* sanity test. SO, we're testing 2 things: Sorry about this - I've mixed up my threads about ext4 having problems with zero-out being re-enabled. I thought this was a cross-post of the 218 issue.... However, the same reasoning can be applied to 285 - the file sizes, the size of the holes and the size of the data is all completely arbitrary. If we make the holes in the files larger, then the zero-out problem simply goes away. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs