On 9/7/12 2:55 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 5/6/12 10:03 AM, Tao Ma wrote: >> On 05/06/2012 07:37 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:07:09PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote: >>>> From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> In my test with ext4, 275 can't pass because ext4 >>>> can create a 8k file in the end not like what xfs >>>> does. So make this test case xfs only for now. >>> >>> It's not an XFS specific test - it's a test that is supposed to test >>> POSIX write behaviour. i.e. if the filesystem is full, and then you >>> free 4k of space, then an 8k write should only be able to write 4k, >>> yes? >> Yes, but it doesn't work as expected for ext4. > > Came across this thread again. I had patches on the list a while ago > to fix it up. > > [PATCH V2] xfstests: make 275 pass > > But it never got fully reviewed or merged. :( It's reviewed & merged now. Does it fix things for you? (I hope?) -Eric > -Eric > >>> So doesn't a failure on ext4 indicate that there's something wrong >>> with ext4 (either it's ENOSPC detection or the short write >>> handling), not the test? >> Actually in my test, ext4 can create the file with 8K file size, not a >> short write. I haven't looked into it yet. But AFAICS, if we have an >> ext4 volume with 8k cluster size, a 4k file can occupy a 8k cluster and >> the final write of 8k will succeed instead of the short write. >> >> Thanks >> Tao >> >> _______________________________________________ >> xfs mailing list >> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx >> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs >> > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
