Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255

Zheng Liu
2013-03-06T16:37:18Z

On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 10:10:09AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 3/5/13 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.
>
> Seems fine to avoid the incorrect failure, so as far as that goes:
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
>
> But we probably can & should still test punch in this situation,
> so we need a new test to exercise that I guess.

Hi Eric,

I have sent a patch set to add a test case for punching hole. You can
find it in this link [1]. Sorry I don't finish the second version
according to Mark's comment.

1. http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg16234.html

Regards,
- Zheng