On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:30:47AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:49:57PM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Some tests actually do run xfs_io on a real file, but we probably > > don't want to go that way. > > > > The test for finding it in help output seems way too specific, > > > > _require_xfs_io_command "pwrite" "-Z" > > > > fails as well because it doesn't hit the specific format in > > the grep. > > > > What if we loosen up the test; is this too loose? (look for param > > preceded by whitespace or square bracket) > > Seems like it's not loose enough as it still tries to run the test > on NFS. For this NFSv4.2 case, I think we have to actually run "falloc -k" to check whether the underlying fs supports (FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE) or not. Current check in _require_xfs_io_command only checks whether xfs_io knows the given option, not the underlying fs. And in this NFSv4.2 case, NFSv4.2 supports fallocate(2), and xfs_io falloc command knows "-k" option, so test runs on NFS. Thanks, Eryu -- 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
