On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 10:03:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > The poster child would be btrfs, and I would have added some output > here if btrfs support in xfstests wasn't completely broken at this > point. > > Well, added Ccs and some output anyway in this case..
Turns out the btrfs failure was my stupidity, sorry. I can reproduce the issue I was going to originally show (which was actually pointed out by Eric for a different fallocate flag check I wanted to add), here is the diff of the output files when running generic/156 on btrfs with your patch: --- tests/generic/156.out 2016-03-29 13:59:30.411720622 +0000 +++ /root/xfstests/results//generic/156.out.bad 2016-10-16 06:15:27.118776421 +0000 @@ -2,8 +2,13 @@ Create the original file blocks Create the reflink copies funshare part of a file +fallocate: Operation not supported funshare some of the copies +fallocate: Operation not supported +fallocate: Operation not supported funshare the rest of the files +fallocate: Operation not supported +fallocate: Operation not supported Rewrite the original file free blocks after reflinking is in range free blocks after nocow'ing some copies is in range So what we really need an enhanced falloc tester that checks that the tested subcommand is actually implemented on the given file system. (And we already need something like that for -k on NFS) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
