On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:49:21PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 30-05-13 15:05:02, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > On 5/30/13 3:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Thu 30-05-13 08:48:24, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > >> On 5/30/13 7:45 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > > >>> Test whether SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA works correctly with offsets over > > >>> 4GB. > > >> > > >> > > >> Hm, should we add 2T as well while we're at it? > > >> > > >> (and does this cause any new failures?) > > > Yes, ext4 is broken. I've sent fixes for it yesterday. I'm not sure what > > > > Argh, sorry I forgot that. I just want to be careful about more rigorous > > tests making it look like we have regressions in the code. > > > > > exactly would overflow at 2T ... block counts if signed int is used and > > > blocksize is 1KB? > > > > Hum ok, where'd I come up with 2T? :) never mind that maybe, unless > > there are other potential trouble points we should add (8T? 16T for > > filesystems that can handle it?) > Yeah, so 8T + something might be interesting and both ext4 & xfs should > handle that fine. 16T + something might be interesting for xfs if it > supports that size. I'll update this patch with these checks. What boundary traversal are we trying to test at these high offsets? I mean, I can understand wanting to confirm they work, but there's no 32 bit variable boundary in the seek code at 8/16TB that needs to be specifically test is there? i.e. is it just testing the same case as the 8GB case? 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
