> > > > Not sure. I don't think we should target the test by what we know your > > patch does, but by maximizing test coverage in a cost effective way. > > > > Creating a 10M file with so many small holes doesn't add much to test > > coverage IMO. If you feel those are needed, you should use a C helper > > to create those files more efficiently. > > > > BTW I think what is missing from test coverage is small holes > > that are not aligned to 1M boundary. > > > > Agreed. > > So how about change test pattern to below, it will cover most of the > cases that we want. I haven't done test for the performance(test time) > but I think it will be fast enough. > > > One 4K empty file. > One 4M empty file. > One 10M file with random small holes (4K~512K) > One 100M file with random big holes (1M~5M) > > It sounds like a good addition, but maybe lets keep the files with aligned holes iosize*10 in size? Thanks, Amir.
