Test 274 in xfstests

Test 274 in xfstests

[Jan Kara]

  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
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

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

Re: Test 274 in xfstests

[Eric Sandeen]

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

Re: Test 274 in xfstests

[Jan Kara]

On Tue 15-05-12 13:12:21, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 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 :)
  Yup, the patch works for me (since I'm mostly interested in ext3 not
being tested ;). I also reviewed your patch and it looks OK so feel free to
add:
  Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

  Just one comment. Messages like:
echo "Fill fs with 1M IOs; EIO expected" >> $seq.full
  should probably speak of ENOSPC, not EIO, shouldn't they?

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

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

Re: Test 274 in xfstests

[Eric Sandeen]

On 5/15/12 3:16 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 15-05-12 13:12:21, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> 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 :)
>   Yup, the patch works for me (since I'm mostly interested in ext3 not
> being tested ;). I also reviewed your patch and it looks OK so feel free to
> add:
>   Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> 
>   Just one comment. Messages like:
> echo "Fill fs with 1M IOs; EIO expected" >> $seq.full
>   should probably speak of ENOSPC, not EIO, shouldn't they?

Oh, yeah, whoops.  thanks.

-Eric

> 								Honza

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