On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:44 PM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 12:14:21PM +0000, fdmanana@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx> > > > > Test that after a full fsync of a file with preallocated extents beyond > > the file's size, if a power failure happens, the preallocated extents > > still exist after we mount the filesystem. > > > > This test currently fails and there is a patch for btrfs that fixes this > > issue and has the following subject: > > > > "btrfs: fix lost prealloc extents beyond eof after full fsync" > > > > Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/btrfs/261 | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/btrfs/261.out | 10 ++++++ > > What is btrfs specific about this test? The comments that explain the steps are very btrfs specific. Without them it would be hard to understand why the test uses that specific file size, block size, mention of the btrfs inode's full sync bit, etc. Some years ago, when you maintained fstests, you complained once about this type of "too btrfs specific" comments on generic tests. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
