On 2017/07/19 17:56, Eryu Guan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:35:01AM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote:
On 2017/07/18 21:18, Eryu Guan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 04:27:50PM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote:
On some old kernel(e.g. v3.5), this case fails because it can not create
extent_max_zeroout_kb file, as below:
Silence is golden
+./tests/generic/448: line 54: /sys/fs/ext4/sda5/extent_max_zeroout_kb: No such file or directory
seek sanity check failed!
The extent_max_zeroout_kb file is introduced by:
67a5da564f97('ext4: make the zero-out chunk size tunable')
This is available since v3.7-rc1 kernel
$ git describe --contains 67a5da564f97
v3.7-rc1~91^2~63
But ext4 SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE support was added in v3.8-rc1
$ git describe --contains c8c0df241cc2
v3.8-rc1~89^2~40
IMO, you shouldn't hit this error at all, because test won't pass
_require_seek_data_hole rule. (Unless you're testing some customized
kernel with seek_data/hole backported but not that ext4 sysfs entry.)
Hi Eryu
Thanks for your explanation.
I test it in v3.5 kernel without seek_data/hole backported, please see the
following message:
[root@localhost xfstests]# uname -r
3.5.0
[root@localhost xfstests]# src/seek_sanity_test -t
/mnt/xfstests/test/testfile 2>&1
File system magic#: 0xef53
Allocation size: 4096
File system supports the default behavior.
OK, I see why the test was *not* _notrun on 3.5 kernel now (without
seek_data/hole support added to ext4, but with SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE flags
recognized by vfs, which was introduced by 982d81658 in v3.1-rc1),
because ext4 had the "default behavior" support, and that means "just
return i_size for SEEK_HOLE and will return the same offset for
SEEK_DATA".
File system does not support unwritten extents.
This means the file system doesn't treat unwritten extents as a hole,
but data, which has nothing to do with SEEK_DATA/HOLE support status.
Hi Eryu,
Thanks for your detailed explanation, i got it.
Could you tell me whether generic/448 should be fixed or not?
Thanks,
Xiao Yang
_require_seek_data_hole could not catch "File system does not support" if
ext4 SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE
support was not added.
I think we should update _require_seek_data_hole to catch both "Kernel does
not support" and
"File system does not support". This case could be skipped when meetting
either of them.
So this is wrong, IMO.
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
