[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5143D9B3.3070405@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:32:19 +0800
From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>
To: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>
CC: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: possible dev branch regression - xfstest 285/1k
Hi Eric,
Thanks for reporting it.
On 03/16/2013 06:28 AM, Eric Whitney wrote:
> I'm seeing Xfstest 285 consistently fail for the 1k test case using the
> latest dev branch while running on both x86 and ARM. Subtest 08 is
> the problem. From the test output:
>
> 08. Test file with unwritten extents, only have unwritten pages
> 08.01 SEEK_HOLE expected 0 or 4194304, got 11264. FAIL
> 08.02 SEEK_HOLE expected 1 or 4194304, got 11264. FAIL
> 08.03 SEEK_DATA expected 10240 or 10240, got 0. FAIL
> 08.04 SEEK_DATA expected 10240 or 10240, got 1. FAIL
>
> From previous discussions, we expect 285 to fail in the ext3 (nodelalloc,
> no flex_bg, and no extents) test case, but in subtest 07. It still does
> that.
Sorry, my latest patch doesn't finish yet.
>
> In the dev branch, reverting 4f42f80a8f - "ext4: use s_extent_max_zeroout_kb
> value as number of kb" - results in success for 285 in the 1k test case.
Presumably this patch isn't root cause. I suspect there are some bugs
in ext4_find_unwritten_pgoff(). I will check it.
Thanks,
- 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