On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:15:25PM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> ltp/fsstress.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/ltp/fsstress.c b/ltp/fsstress.c
> index 4c3368f..42c8a5a 100644
> --- a/ltp/fsstress.c
> +++ b/ltp/fsstress.c
> @@ -2555,8 +2555,8 @@ punch_f(int opno, long r)
> off = (off64_t)(lr % MIN(stb.st_size + (1024 * 1024), MAXFSIZE));
> off %= maxfsize;
> len = (off64_t)(random() % (1024 * 1024));
> - mode |= FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE & random();
> e = fallocate(fd, mode, (loff_t)off, (loff_t)len) < 0 ? errno : 0;
> + mode |= FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE;
> if (v)
> printf("%d/%d: punch hole(%d) %s %s %lld %lld %d\n",
> procid, opno, mode,
NACK. There's nothing wrong with testing a set of parameters that
should fail in a stress test.
Regardless, the patch is wrong...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
