On Wed 17-05-17 20:31:15, Eryu Guan wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 02:10:43PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Hello, > > > > this is the second revision of the patches to fix bugs in XFS's SEEK_HOLE > > implementation and cleanup the code a bit. > > > > Changes since v1: > > * Fixed some more buggy cases > > * Simplified code a bit as suggested by Darrick > > * Fixed range check as spotted by Brian > > I applied this patchset on top of 4.12-rc1 kernel to test your v4 test > case, your new test passed all my tests, but I found generic/285 > regressed with sub-page block size XFS, 285.full showed that failure was > from subtest 7 > > 07. Test file with unwritten extents, only have dirty pages > 07.01 SEEK_HOLE expected 0 or 11264, got 0. succ > 07.02 SEEK_HOLE expected 1 or 11264, got 1. succ > 07.03 SEEK_DATA expected 10240 or 10240, got -1. FAIL > 07.04 SEEK_DATA expected 10240 or 10240, got -1. FAIL > > And manual test showed subtest 8 failed too > > # ./src/seek_sanity_test -s 8 -e 8 /mnt/xfs/testfile > File system magic#: 0x58465342 > Allocation size: 4096 > > 08. Test file with unwritten extents, only have unwritten pages > 08.01 SEEK_HOLE expected 0 or 5632, got 0. succ > 08.02 SEEK_HOLE expected 1 or 5632, got 1. succ > 08.03 SEEK_DATA expected 5120 or 5120, got -1. FAIL > 08.04 SEEK_DATA expected 5120 or 5120, got -1. FAIL > > Other subtests all passed with sub-page block size XFS. Strange. It doesn't fail for me this way even with 1k blocksize. I'll investigate more tomorrow. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
