On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 10:10:09AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 3/5/13 11:59 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > As of Linux 3.9-rc1, ext4 will support the punch operation on file > > systems using indirect blocks, but it can not support the fallocate > > operation (since there is no way to mark a block as uninitialized > > using indirect block scheme). This caused test 255 to fail, since it > > only used _require_xfS_io_falloc_punch assuming that all file systems > > which supported punch can also support fallocate. Fix this. > > Seems fine to avoid the incorrect failure, so as far as that goes: > > Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > But we probably can & should still test punch in this situation, > so we need a new test to exercise that I guess. Hi Eric, I have sent a patch set to add a test case for punching hole. You can find it in this link [1]. Sorry I don't finish the second version according to Mark's comment. 1. http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg16234.html Regards, - Zheng -- 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
