From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o7S0NBZh118797 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:23:12 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 79BD72F375 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (64-131-60-146.usfamily.net [64.131.60.146]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id LP6OZOD8b3RJwklR for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C785710.9070405@sandeen.net> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:23:44 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Test to ensure that the EOFBLOCK_FL gets set/unset correctly. References: <1282941224-5805-1-git-send-email-alal@google.com> <20100827233216.GJ705@dastard> <4C785254.2020708@sandeen.net> <20100828001703.GK705@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20100828001703.GK705@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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, Akshay Lal Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 07:03:32PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Dave Chinner wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure this really is a generic test - it's testing an ext4 >>> specific bug. We've got other generic tests that exercise fallocate, >>> and some filesystems (like XFS) don't have special bits to say there >>> are extents beyond EOF and checking a filesystem repeated won't >>> report any problems. So perhaps if should be '_supported_fs ext4' >> >> Oops we're giving conflicting advice :) I thought a test that >> exercises blocks-past-eof-filling at various boundaries made >> sense in general, even if the specific regression test is ext4-specific. >> >> Seems like at least ocfs2/btrfs might benefit from the basic exercise, >> so I was recommending that it be generic. > > Ok, that seems reasonable. If the bug results in filesystem > corruption, then maybe just relying on the check at the end of the > test to fail it would be appropriate? That's fine by me, if e2fsck will squawk, that's enough. -Eric > Cheers, > > Dave. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs