On 01/28/13 01:32, Zheng Liu wrote:
Hi all, Here is my first try to improve seek data/hole and hole punching test cases in xfstests. The key issue in 255 and 285 is that they assume that all file systems that are tested support unwritten extent preallocation. Before 3.8 kernel it is correct. But now ext4 file system has ability to seek data/hole and punch a hole for a file w/o unwritten extent. So it is time to improve these test cases. In this patch series it calls _require_xfs_io_falloc in 255 and 285 to make sure that unwritten extent is supprted by tested file system. A new argument '-t' is added into seek_sanity_test to check a file system that supports seek data/hole or not. In the mean time _require_seek_data_hole is defined to be used by all tests. Further two new test cases are created to test seek data/hole and hole punching w/o unwritten extent, which do the same thing like 255 and 285 except that they don't do some test cases which are related to unwritten extent. Any comments or feedbacks are welcome. Thanks, - Zheng
Hi Zheng, I wonder if reviving the idea of putting the SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE feature into xfs_io would simplify the existing tests and future ones. My last version of the SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE xfs_io extension should be sightly changed to make the hole only test output to be consistent with the data test; namely, it should end with an EOF entry. http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-11/msg00106.html I know there will be some result filtering needed for holes which the C program based tests already provide. Just a thought. --Mark. -- 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
