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: <20130306165226.GA3454@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:52:26 +0800 From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com> To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc in test 255 On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 10:10:09AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 3/5/13 11:59 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > 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. > > Seems fine to avoid the incorrect failure, so as far as that goes: > > Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> > > But we probably can & should still test punch in this situation, > so we need a new test to exercise that I guess. Hi Eric, I have sent a patch set to add a test case for punching hole. You can find it in this link [1]. Sorry I don't finish the second version according to Mark's comment. 1. http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg16234.html Regards, - Zheng -- 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