From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q4FICN39203521 for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 13:12:23 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id mydj0keX1MLlBEmM for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 11:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FB29C85.5000603@sandeen.net> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 13:12:21 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Test 274 in xfstests References: <20120515180521.GE26579@quack.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20120515180521.GE26579@quack.suse.cz> 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: Jan Kara Cc: wu.bo@cn.fujitsu.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com On 5/15/12 1:05 PM, Jan Kara wrote: > Hello, > > test 274 fails e.g. for ext3 because it does not support fallocate(). So > I would think the best way to fix the is to add to the test > _require_xfs_io_falloc() > so that the test is run only for filesystems which do support fallocate. > But with that is connected one slightly related question - why does the > test use fallocate(1) binary instead of "xfs_io falloc" command which is > more common in xfstests? > > Honza Argh I'm behind. I had: [PATCH V2] xfstests: several 274 fixups on the list way too long ago. Want to test that out? It has 1 review on the list, I'll merge it soon - if you want to give it a quick test first, go for it :) -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs