On 2/23/15 5:28 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 2/23/15 5:11 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 09:46:20AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: >>>> Linux commit 6f30b7e37a82 (ext4: fix indirect punch hole corruption) >>>> fixes several bugs in the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE implementation for an >>>> ext4 filesystem with indirect blocks. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> tests/ext4/005 | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> tests/ext4/005.out | 29 ++++++++++++++ >>>> tests/ext4/group | 1 + >>>> 3 files changed, 145 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100755 tests/ext4/005 >>>> create mode 100644 tests/ext4/005.out >>> >>> What's ext4 specific about this test apart from the mkfs parameter? >>> Shouldn't it be generic and so test all the filesystems behave the >>> same? i.e. when someone then runs >>> >>> # MKFS_OPTIONS="-b size=1k -O ^extents" ./check -g auto >>> >>> That will exercise this specific regression fix, not to mention give >>> much, much better test coverage of that configuration than just >>> making a single test use that config... >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Dave. >>> -- >>> Dave Chinner >>> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> Hi, Dave, >> >> This test isn't completely generic bcause the output is dependent on the >> block size. In particular, fpunch+fiemap will have different results >> based on the block size: >> >> ---- >> # mkfs.ext3 -b1024 /dev/sdb1 >> # mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/test >> # xfs_io -f -c 'pwrite 0 8192' /mnt/test/a >> # xfs_io -c 'fpunch 0 1024' /mnt/test/a >> # xfs_io -c fiemap /mnt/test/a >> /mnt/test/a: >> 0: [0..1]: hole >> 1: [2..15]: 1028..1041 >> # umount /mnt/test >> # mkfs.ext3 -b4096 /dev/sdb1 >> # mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/test >> # xfs_io -f -c 'pwrite 0 8192' /mnt/test/a >> # xfs_io -c 'fpunch 0 1024' /mnt/test/a >> # xfs_io -c fiemap /mnt/test/a >> /mnt/test/a: >> 0: [0..15]: 8192..8207 >> ---- >> >> I could either remove the fiemap output from the test case and rely on >> the md5sum or round all of the punches to some larger block size so it >> will behave the same up to, say, 8k. Do either of those options sound >> better? >> >> Alternatively, is there a good way to have block size-dependent test >> output? Then we could have the test adapt to different block sizes and >> cover these regressions at any block size, not just 1k. > > Can you scale every operational offset by block size? I think there are > other tests which do this sort of thing - look at _filter_bmap in test > xfs/194 maybe? > > i.e. above you would do 'fpunch 0 $blocksize' not 'fpunch 0 1024' > (or blocksize/4, or whatever your intent is) Or, I was talking to Dave about adding a fs-block-units output format for fiemap... which might make life a lot simpler in cases like this, though you'd still have to scale the tested offsets by fs blocks, but that's not too hard. -Eric -- 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
