[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <522A3254.3090704@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 14:51:48 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>
CC: xfs@....sgi.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RESEND] xfstests: only run generic/300 on filesystems
supporting
On 9/6/13 2:42 PM, Eric Whitney wrote:
> Generic/300 fails when run on a test filesystem that does not support
> fallocate(), as in the case of an ext4 filesystem created without the
> extent feature. It uses fio's falloc ioengine to generate part of its
> I/O load.
>
> Verify that the test filesystem supports fallocate() before proceeding
> with the test. Also, delete any pre-existing test output to avoid
> confusion with old results.
Hey Eric - sorry this got missed for review.
Since the test doesn't actually use xfs_io it seems like slightly the
wrong check, maybe we need a new _require_fio_falloc()?
But xfs_io will almost always be installed for someone running
xfstests, and the check as you have it will indeed test that the fs
can do fallocate; it's just not the most targeted test.
It's probably ok, though - a comment about why you _require_xfs_io
when xfs_io isn't used might be good.
What do you think?
-Eric
> Signed-off-by: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>
> ---
> tests/generic/300 | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/generic/300 b/tests/generic/300
> index 7c60728..1ac763b 100755
> --- a/tests/generic/300
> +++ b/tests/generic/300
> @@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ _supported_fs generic
> _supported_os Linux
> _need_to_be_root
> _require_scratch
> +_require_xfs_io_falloc
> +
> +rm -f $seqres.full
>
> NUM_JOBS=$((4*LOAD_FACTOR))
> BLK_DEV_SIZE=`blockdev --getsz $SCRATCH_DEV`
>
--
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