On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Omar Sandoval wrote: > Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:03:56 -0800 > From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>, > Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: add regression tests for ^extents punch hole > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 07:24:37PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > I suspect our current generic fsstress and fsx tests would catch this > > already, and what I need to do is to make sure I add ext3/1k to my > > test configurations (currently I test an ext3 configuration, and a 1k > > block configuration, but I don't currently test ext3/1k together). > > That would probably round out my full test iteration to a very > > pleasing 24 hours or so, which is fine, although I wouldn't want it to > > take much longer than that. > > > Actually, this issue isn't specific to 1k blocks, so I wouldn't count on > it :) That block size in my tests is an artifact of the initial > reproducer Lukas had (generic/270 on ext3 with 1k blocks). It just so > happens that the start/len arguments fsstress chooses for punch hole > operations in that setup straddles the indirect tree levels in the wrong > ways. Right, it's not specific to 1k but it was easier to hit it this way. Even though we've been able to detect this problem before I think it's very much worth to have a special test case for this particular problem anyway. > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 03:58:06PM +0100, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > > Omar, can you make the test generic and can this be reproduced on 4k > > block size ? If not, can you make a generic reproducer which does > > not depend on the block size ? > > > > Also if we want to include the special case for ext4, we need to > > have a function which allows us to alter the mkfs options without > > completely overriding the user specified options. I think that there > > is something like that for xfs, Omar can you do that for ext4 as > > well ? > > > > Thanks! > > -Lukas > > > > > No problem, I'll have a go at it. Great, thanks! -Lukas > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:07:19AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > It's built into the _scratch_mkfs_xfs wrapper, where if the test > > supplies extra options and that conflicts with the CLI supplied > > options it drops the CLI specific options and just uses the test > > options. > > > > I've mentioned this specificly in the past, too. i.e. that all > > _scratch_mkfs_$FSTYP wrappers should be handling CLI vs test > > specific options like this.... :/ > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave. > > > I'll take that into account. > > > Thanks, everyone! >
