diff mbox

[2/3] misc: fix fallocate commands that need the unshare switch

Message ID 20161016061837.GA12614@infradead.org
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Christoph Hellwig Oct. 16, 2016, 6:18 a.m. UTC
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 10:03:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The poster child would be btrfs, and I would have added some output
> here if btrfs support in xfstests wasn't completely broken at this
> point.
> 
> Well, added Ccs and some output anyway in this case..

Turns out the btrfs failure was my stupidity, sorry.

I can reproduce the issue I was going to originally show (which was
actually pointed out by Eric for a different fallocate flag check
I wanted to add), here is the diff of the output files when running
generic/156 on btrfs with your patch:


So what we really need an enhanced falloc tester that checks that
the tested subcommand is actually implemented on the given file system.
(And we already need something like that for -k on NFS)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Comments

Darrick J. Wong Oct. 17, 2016, 9:57 p.m. UTC | #1
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 11:18:37PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 10:03:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > The poster child would be btrfs, and I would have added some output
> > here if btrfs support in xfstests wasn't completely broken at this
> > point.
> > 
> > Well, added Ccs and some output anyway in this case..
> 
> Turns out the btrfs failure was my stupidity, sorry.
> 
> I can reproduce the issue I was going to originally show (which was
> actually pointed out by Eric for a different fallocate flag check
> I wanted to add), here is the diff of the output files when running
> generic/156 on btrfs with your patch:

Somehow it totally escaped my notice that I could just do:

_require_xfs_io_command "funshare"

and that would suffice for excluding things like btrfs.  Will
rework.

--D

> 
> --- tests/generic/156.out	2016-03-29 13:59:30.411720622 +0000
> +++ /root/xfstests/results//generic/156.out.bad	2016-10-16 06:15:27.118776421 +0000
> @@ -2,8 +2,13 @@
>  Create the original file blocks
>  Create the reflink copies
>  funshare part of a file
> +fallocate: Operation not supported
>  funshare some of the copies
> +fallocate: Operation not supported
> +fallocate: Operation not supported
>  funshare the rest of the files
> +fallocate: Operation not supported
> +fallocate: Operation not supported
>  Rewrite the original file
>  free blocks after reflinking is in range
>  free blocks after nocow'ing some copies is in range
> 
> So what we really need an enhanced falloc tester that checks that
> the tested subcommand is actually implemented on the given file system.
> (And we already need something like that for -k on NFS)
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff mbox

Patch

--- tests/generic/156.out	2016-03-29 13:59:30.411720622 +0000
+++ /root/xfstests/results//generic/156.out.bad	2016-10-16 06:15:27.118776421 +0000
@@ -2,8 +2,13 @@ 
 Create the original file blocks
 Create the reflink copies
 funshare part of a file
+fallocate: Operation not supported
 funshare some of the copies
+fallocate: Operation not supported
+fallocate: Operation not supported
 funshare the rest of the files
+fallocate: Operation not supported
+fallocate: Operation not supported
 Rewrite the original file
 free blocks after reflinking is in range
 free blocks after nocow'ing some copies is in range