On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 04:45:10PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 07:49:15AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:26:35PM +0100, Dushan Tcholich wrote: > > > Add tests for allocate support and test if TRIM really works on tested > > > partition. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dushan Tcholich <dusanc@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- xfstests.orig/tests/generic/038 2014-12-14 15:18:00.000000000 +0100 > > > +++ xfstests/tests/generic/038 2014-12-15 23:21:11.000000000 +0100 > > > @@ -70,6 +70,10 @@ > > > _supported_os Linux > > > _require_scratch > > > _require_fstrim > > > +_require_xfs_io_command "falloc" > > > +_require_xfs_io_command "truncate" > > > > No need to test for the truncate command as it's supported in all > > versions of xfs_io people use. falloc, OTOH, isn't supported on oler > > distros that people still need to run QA on, and hence that check is > > required.... > > I've also been using '_require_xfs_io_command "falloc"' to test > whether the file system supports fallocate(2). So for example, in the > patch that I sent out today, I'm checking not just whether xfs_io > supports "falloc", but whether the file system under test (at least > with a specific configuration, such as ext4 in ext3 compatibility > mode) supports fallocate(2). Do you consider that a valid thing to > do? Yes, that's it's intent. From the 2009 patch that introduced checks for fallocate support: +# check that xfs_io, glibc, kernel, and filesystem all (!) support +# fallocate +# +_require_xfs_io_falloc() i.e. the one function checks the entire stack for fallocate support. That's not going to change. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
