From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p5RIG5gj131744 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:16:06 -0500 Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 7198A13569D2 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com (e37.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.158]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id bIpS1U0PS0IZTihH for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by e37.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p5RICxrZ025335 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:12:59 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p5RIFbg3167834 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:15:38 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p5RIFaOa003271 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:15:37 -0600 Message-ID: <4E08C8BE.7090500@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:15:26 -0700 From: Allison Henderson MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfstests: fix fsx fpunch test to actually test for fpunch References: <1309153722-1231-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1309153722-1231-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> In-Reply-To: <1309153722-1231-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 06/26/2011 10:48 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner > > The operation flags parameter to fallocate is the second parameter, > not the last. Hence the fpunch test is actually testing for falloc > support, not fpunch. Somebody needs a brown paper bag. > > Also, add a ftruncate call whenthe fpunch succeeds just in case the > file was not already zero sized. Failing to ensure we start with a > zero length file can cause read ops to fail size checks if they > occur before the file is written to be the main test loop. > > While there, observe the quiet flag the same as the falloc test > does and have them both emit the warning at the same error level. Hi there, Sorry about that, I think this bug was mine. I have tried your patch set on my box, and it appears to run with out problems for me. Thx! Allison Henderson _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs