On 2020/1/6 19:24, Amir Goldstein wrote:
A very strong NACK!
Why are you making this change?
Did you read the description of the tests and try to understand the sequence
prescribed in the replay-ops file?
Those are reproducers to specific issues that require a very specific sequence
of operations and it seems to me that 'keep_size' is there for a reason in every
one of those tests.
For example, take the test generic/456, which I wrote, it has this link in the
comment above fsxops to a very elaborate email from Ted explaining the
problem:https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=151137380830381&w=2
You cannot just remove 'keep_size' from the test because then the test
doesn't do what it is intended to do.
Did you read my reply to Eryu's patch which he referred you to?
https://spinics.net/lists/fstests/msg08007.html
Instead of allowing test generic/456 to run on fs which doesn't support
FL_KEEP_SIZE, you should change the test to*require* support for
FL_KEEP_SIZE as well as require support for punch/zero/collapse:
_require_xfs_io_command "falloc" "-k"
_require_xfs_io_command "fpunch"
_require_xfs_io_command "fzero"
_require_xfs_io_command "fcollapse"
Same for the other tests that you changed to ignore keep_size.
Hi Amir,
Thanks for your comment.
I had a doubt and asked Eryu after sending the second patch:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/fstests/msg13278.html
Current fsx skips all unsupported ops(e.g. punch_hole, zero_range,
collapse_range) automatically even if they are specified by
--replay-ops. Is this existing logic wrong?
I read your suggestion before, but i just have a worry:
xfs_io commands cannot detect the supported flags of fallocate()
correctly in one case(i.e. xfs_io commands are not supported but
fallocate(2) supports flags).
fsx has many test_ functions to check these flags, so we can make fsx
call only these test_ functions by adding a option and then report "not
run" by analyzing the generated output.
Best Regards,
Xiao Yang
