From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48924 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754387AbdEQO5t (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 May 2017 10:57:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 16:57:46 +0200 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v2] xfs: Fix SEEK_HOLE implementation Message-ID: <20170517145746.GC5632@quack2.suse.cz> References: <20170517121046.2632-1-jack@suse.cz> <20170517123115.GG7250@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170517123115.GG7250@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Eryu Guan Cc: Jan Kara , "Darrick J . Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Brian Foster On Wed 17-05-17 20:31:15, Eryu Guan wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 02:10:43PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Hello, > > > > this is the second revision of the patches to fix bugs in XFS's SEEK_HOLE > > implementation and cleanup the code a bit. > > > > Changes since v1: > > * Fixed some more buggy cases > > * Simplified code a bit as suggested by Darrick > > * Fixed range check as spotted by Brian > > I applied this patchset on top of 4.12-rc1 kernel to test your v4 test > case, your new test passed all my tests, but I found generic/285 > regressed with sub-page block size XFS, 285.full showed that failure was > from subtest 7 > > 07. Test file with unwritten extents, only have dirty pages > 07.01 SEEK_HOLE expected 0 or 11264, got 0. succ > 07.02 SEEK_HOLE expected 1 or 11264, got 1. succ > 07.03 SEEK_DATA expected 10240 or 10240, got -1. FAIL > 07.04 SEEK_DATA expected 10240 or 10240, got -1. FAIL > > And manual test showed subtest 8 failed too > > # ./src/seek_sanity_test -s 8 -e 8 /mnt/xfs/testfile > File system magic#: 0x58465342 > Allocation size: 4096 > > 08. Test file with unwritten extents, only have unwritten pages > 08.01 SEEK_HOLE expected 0 or 5632, got 0. succ > 08.02 SEEK_HOLE expected 1 or 5632, got 1. succ > 08.03 SEEK_DATA expected 5120 or 5120, got -1. FAIL > 08.04 SEEK_DATA expected 5120 or 5120, got -1. FAIL > > Other subtests all passed with sub-page block size XFS. Strange. It doesn't fail for me this way even with 1k blocksize. I'll investigate more tomorrow. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR