Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for fallocate

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 04:10:52PM +0100, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
> Yes, shared/243 is actually looking at the file system using debugfs
> trying to figure out whether this flag is set or not. And that is
> what is failing.
> 
> See the 243.full output:
> 
> Test 1: Fallocate 40960 bytes and write 4096 bytes (buffered io).
> EOFBLOCK_FL bit is not set.
> Error: Current bit state incorrect.
> 
> However I am not really sure why is this in shared since this is
> only useful for ext4.

Ah, I agree, it's confusing/wrong for this test to be in shared/243;
we should probably rename it to ext4/243 for now.

> I believe that we're not very consistent with that anyway. That was
> part of the reason why we got rid of it in e2fsck. However I agree
> that this might cause additional problems. So it might be better to
> just keep this in kernel for now...

Yeah, there are some really otherwise hard to solve races were we
might not set EOFBLOCK_FL.  We kept tripping over them when running
xfstests, but it was otherwise pretty hard to hit.

Perhaps we should set a date, say in another two years, when we make
this go away.

					- 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




[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux