On 4/25/25 7:44 AM, Zorro Lang wrote: > 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 ? I quickly tested this with my NFS ZERO_RANGE patch, and didn't have any problems. I'll send a v2 removing the "-k" argument in a few minutes! Anna > > Thanks, > Zorro > >> >> --D >> >>> >>> _scratch_mkfs >/dev/null 2>&1 >>> _scratch_mount >>> -- >>> 2.49.0 >>> >>> >> >
