On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 02:29 -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On 2011-04-19, at 1:37 AM, Allison Henderson wrote: > > Big Hole Test > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > A hole large hole is punched in a large file (exact file size=638169088 bytes, exact hole size = 638150422 bytes, offset = 6144 bytes), > > resulting in all but 5 blocks being punched out (2 in the front, 3 in the back). This test case verifies that the code can properly > > punch out a hole covering multiple extents. > > > > This test is successful when the following conditions are met: > > - File frag shows extents only for the first two blocks and the last 3 blocks > > - The test file contains zeros from bytes 6144 to 638156566 > > (* ls and df is not measured here because some blocks will still be reserved > > as index blocks causing the consumed space to be appear larger) > > Shouldn't the remaining two extents fit inside the inode, so there is no need for index blocks, or does the extent removal code not shrink the index blocks? > It seems so, the extent removal code today not shrink the index blocks > Cheers, Andreas > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
