From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com>
Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15])
	by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A0A7CBF
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 07:16:25 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25])
	by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5AB6AC00D
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 05:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (e23smtp04.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.146]) by
	cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id exNsKXPeH9CbbWFf (version=TLSv1
	cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>;
	Tue, 27 Aug 2013 05:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from /spool/local
	by e23smtp04.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use
	Only! Violators will be prosecuted
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com> from <chandan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>;
	Tue, 27 Aug 2013 21:59:04 +1000
Received: from d23relay05.au.ibm.com (d23relay05.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.152])
	by d23dlp03.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6986F357804E
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:16:14 +1000 (EST)
Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97])
	by d23relay05.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id
	r7RC00KY6553906
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:00:00 +1000
Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id
	r7RCGDeP011982 for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:16:14 +1000
From: chandan <chandan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: generic/255: Execute only if blocksize <= 4096
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:46:07 +0530
Message-ID: <3942763.p7a9her5Nt@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <521B664B.7030404@redhat.com>
References: <2909046.09LYLQvZ6q@localhost.localdomain>
	<44437668.FEX1DiRokR@localhost.localdomain>
	<521B664B.7030404@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI <xfs.oss.sgi.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/options/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs>
List-Post: <mailto:xfs@oss.sgi.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=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: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: sekharan@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com

On Monday, August 26, 2013 09:29:31 AM Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 
> Just as a sanity check, does it also fail on xfs for 64k block sizes on ppc64?
> 

Yes, it does fail as shown below:

generic/255      - output mismatch (see /home/chandan/xfstests/results//generic/255.out.bad)
    --- tests/generic/255.out   2013-08-27 06:59:08.241344176 -0400
    +++ /home/chandan/xfstests/results//generic/255.out.bad     2013-08-27 07:01:45.311352161 -0400
    @@ -2,306 +2,202 @@
        1. into a hole
     daa100df6e6711906b61c9ab5aa16032
        2. into allocated space
    -0: [0..7]: extent
    -1: [8..23]: hole
    -2: [24..39]: extent
    +0: [0..127]: extent
     ...
     (Run 'diff -u tests/generic/255.out /home/chandan/xfstests/results//generic/255.out.bad' to see the entire diff)

In this instance, the test basically ends up punching a hole within a block
and hence fails.

- chandan

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs