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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5136428C.3020604@sgi.com> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists