[cc xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:21:22PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:59:12AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > > > I wonder that maybe we need to submit a patch to let xfstest understand > > that a filesystem supports extents or not because after applied this > > patch indirect-based file in ext4 has supported seek_data/hole and hole > > punching. I usually run xfstest automatically, and every time I need > > to check the result of #255 and #285 manually. That is annoying for me. > > I would think the right thing to do is to have xfstests make sure it > understands that fallocate working with FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE does not > imply that fallocate without the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE flag OR'ed in > will work. We already have this capabiity in xfstests via _require_xfs_io_falloc_punch and _require_xfs_io_falloc. That, however, doesn't mean the tests that use these calls do the correct requirement checks. That's the problem with 255 - it doesn't call _require_xfs_io_falloc. As to 285, the seek_sanity_test does it's own check for seek hole/data support, and error out if it fails. This needs to be turned into an equivalent _require_seek_hole_data (e.g. by running "seek_sanity_test -t" to test for support) and 285 needs to the call the _require_seek_hole_data before running the test proper. Please send patches to xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
