On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:37:25AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 06:27:40PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > During a punch operation, if we decide to delete an extent out of the extent > > tree, the subsequent extents are moved on top of the current extent (that is to > > say, they're memmmove'd down one slot). Therefore it is not correct to advance > > to the next leaf because that means we miss half the extents in the range! > > Rereading the current pointer should be fine. > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks, applied. > > BTW, in the future, this is the sort of change where creating a > regression test would be highly appreciated --- especially since you > presumably had to create test cases while you were creating the patch, > so it's much less effort to encapsulate it into a test case while > developing the patch. I do have one, but it's hung up (with a bunch of other tests) in that icsum.sh script. I'm working on turning that into make check tests, but there's nearly 70 of them. (Alternately, fire up fuse2fs and try to truncate a fragmented extent file.) --D > > - Ted > -- > 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
