[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303235373.2534.8.camel@mingming-laptop>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:49:33 -0700
From: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc: Allison Henderson <achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Ext4 Punch Hole Support: Change summary and test case summary
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 02:29 -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2011-04-19, at 1:37 AM, Allison Henderson wrote:
> > .Big Hole Test
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > A hole large hole is punched in a large file (exact file size=638169088 bytes, exact hole size = 638150422 bytes, offset = 6144 bytes),
> > resulting in all but 5 blocks being punched out (2 in the front, 3 in the back). This test case verifies that the code can properly
> > punch out a hole covering multiple extents.
> >
> > This test is successful when the following conditions are met:
> > - File frag shows extents only for the first two blocks and the last 3 blocks
> > - The test file contains zeros from bytes 6144 to 638156566
> > (* ls and df is not measured here because some blocks will still be reserved
> > as index blocks causing the consumed space to be appear larger)
>
> Shouldn't the remaining two extents fit inside the inode, so there is no need for index blocks, or does the extent removal code not shrink the index blocks?
>
It seems so, the extent removal code today not shrink the index blocks
> Cheers, Andreas
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists