Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 07:03:32PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Dave Chinner wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure this really is a generic test - it's testing an ext4 >>> specific bug. We've got other generic tests that exercise fallocate, >>> and some filesystems (like XFS) don't have special bits to say there >>> are extents beyond EOF and checking a filesystem repeated won't >>> report any problems. So perhaps if should be '_supported_fs ext4' >> >> Oops we're giving conflicting advice :) I thought a test that >> exercises blocks-past-eof-filling at various boundaries made >> sense in general, even if the specific regression test is ext4-specific. >> >> Seems like at least ocfs2/btrfs might benefit from the basic exercise, >> so I was recommending that it be generic. > > Ok, that seems reasonable. If the bug results in filesystem > corruption, then maybe just relying on the check at the end of the > test to fail it would be appropriate? That's fine by me, if e2fsck will squawk, that's enough. -Eric > Cheers, > > Dave. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
