On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 02:36:07PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 03:57:30PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> > From: Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Otherwise this test will fail on filesystems that implement
> > FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE but not the optional FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE flag.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tests/generic/033 | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/033 b/tests/generic/033
> > index a9a9ff5a3431..a33f6add67bf 100755
> > --- a/tests/generic/033
> > +++ b/tests/generic/033
> > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ _begin_fstest auto quick rw zero
> >
> > # Modify as appropriate.
> > _require_scratch
> > -_require_xfs_io_command "fzero"
> > +_require_xfs_io_command "fzero" "-k"
>
> I wonder, does this test even need KEEP_SIZE? It writes 64MB to the
> file, then it fzeros every other 4k up to (64M-4k), then fzeroes
> everything else. AFAICT the fzero commands never exceed the file
> size...though I could be wrong.
Hmm... I think you're right, the code logic is:
bytes=$((64 * 1024))
$XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "pwrite 0 $bytes" $file
endoff=$((bytes - 4096))
for i in $(seq 0 8192 $endoff); do
$XFS_IO_PROG -c "fzero -k $i 4k" $file
done
for i in $(seq 4096 8192 $endoff); do
$XFS_IO_PROG -c "fzero -k $i 4k" $file
done
So looks like the offset+len isn't greater than the file size. So we
might can remove the "-k" directly. What do you think ?
Thanks,
Zorro
>
> --D
>
> >
> > _scratch_mkfs >/dev/null 2>&1
> > _scratch_mount
> > --
> > 2.49.0
> >
> >
>
