linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 5 Mar 2013 13:07:56 -0600
From:	Rich Johnston <rjohnston@....com>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
CC:	<xfs@....sgi.com>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc
 in test 255

This patch has been committed.

Thanks
--Rich

commit 864688d368d6781c3f6d60bc55b5e3591953e462
Author: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Date:   Tue Mar 5 17:59:42 2013 +0000

     xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255

     As of Linux 3.9-rc1, ext4 will support the punch operation on file
     systems using indirect blocks, but it can not support the fallocate
     operation (since there is no way to mark a block as uninitialized
     using indirect block scheme).  This caused test 255 to fail, since it
     only used _require_xfS_io_falloc_punch assuming that all file systems
     which supported punch can also support fallocate.  Fix this.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html