From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 233A98015 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:51:48 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <51363ECA.3090909@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:51:54 -0600 From: Rich Johnston MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255 References: <1362506382-26974-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <1362506382-26974-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> 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" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Ext4 Developers List , xfs@oss.sgi.com On 03/05/2013 11:59 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > As of Linux 3.9-rc1, ext4 will support the punch operation on file > systems using indirect blocks, but it can not support the fallocate > operation (since there is no way to mark a block as uninitialized > using indirect block scheme). This caused test 255 to fail, since it > only used _require_xfS_io_falloc_punch assuming that all file systems > which supported punch can also support fallocate. Fix this. > > Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" > --- > 255 | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/255 b/255 > index 0083963..ae1d8e0 100755 > --- a/255 > +++ b/255 > @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ _supported_fs generic > _supported_os Linux > > _require_xfs_io_falloc_punch > +_require_xfs_io_falloc #rcj looks reasonable to me to add this requirement > _require_xfs_io_fiemap > > testfile=$TEST_DIR/255.$$ > Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs