Hi Christoph,
On 07/22/2012 12:57 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 02:24:36PM +0800, Jie Liu wrote:
Output:
HOLE/DATA at 512K 786432 / 528384 <- undiscovered hole here
HOLE/DATA at 516K 786432 / 528384 <- okay, data but we should
return next page as hole.
HOLE/DATA at 520K 532480 / 819200 <- hole is discovered because
there is no trailing data
Oops! for xfs_seek_hole(), I should use min_t() to pre-claculate
offset before searching page cache.
Thanks for your prompt feedback. I'll do some extra tests and post
the revised soon.
Yes, the above test cases should go into xfstests.
Should we keep 285 unchanged and introduce a new test 28? which is
dedicated to ensuring the refinements works as expected?
I have added some new test cases to Mark's test program yesterday, looks
it will grow even bigger if I can think out some other
corner cases(will send them to Mark).
Thanks,
-Jeff
Thanks to both of you to spend all the effort on this feature.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
