From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0577F50 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:53:55 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2027AC002 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:53:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ZZ6Fro0yeObgSBAB for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:53:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:53:49 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] ext4/242: Add ext4 specific test for fallocate zero range Message-ID: <20140225205349.GD13647@dastard> References: <1393355728-12056-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <1393355728-12056-6-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1393355728-12056-6-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Lukas Czerner Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:15:28PM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote: > This is copy of xfs/242. However it's better to make it file system > specific because the range can be zeroes either directly by writing > zeroes, or converting to unwritten extent, so the actual result might > differ from file system to file system. You could say the same thing about preallocation using unwritten extents. Yet, funnily enough, we have generic tests for them because all filesystems currently use unwritten extents for preallocation and behave identically.... This test is no different - all filesystems currently use unwritten extents, and so this test should be generic because all existing filesystems *should* behave the same. When we get a filesystem that zeros rather uses unwritten extents, we can add a new *generic* test that tests for zeroed data extents rather than unwritten extents. All that we will need is a method of checking what behaviour the filesystem has and adding that to a _requires directive to ensure the correct generic fallocate tests are run... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs