On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 04:35:53PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Hi Dave, I updated the patch and moved it to btrfs.
>
> But I still has some question about the fallocate behavior.
>
> Just as the new btrfs test case, I changed the fallocate range, not
> to cover the last part, to make the problem
Hi Dave, I updated the patch and moved it to btrfs.
But I still has some question about the fallocate behavior.
Just as the new btrfs test case, I changed the fallocate range, not to
cover the last part, to make the problem more obvious:
Btrfs will truncate beyond EOF even that's *not
Qu Wenruo posted on Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:48:37 +0800 as excerpted:
> Both gives quite good expression, I'll pick one of them.
... And for the one-line title, /bull/bad/ should do it. =:^)
People wanting details about bad /how/ can look at the fuller description
or source.
--
Duncan - List
在 2015年09月29日 18:00, Hugo Mills 写道:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Normally, a bull fallocate call on a fully written and synced file
should not add an extent.
What's a "bull" fallocate call? Is it a typo, or simply something
I'm not familiar with?
Hugo.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> 在 2015年09月29日 18:00, Hugo Mills 写道:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>
>>> Normally, a bull fallocate call on a fully written and synced file
>>> should not add an extent.
>>
>>
>>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Normally, a bull fallocate call on a fully written and synced file
> should not add an extent.
What's a "bull" fallocate call? Is it a typo, or simply something
I'm not familiar with?
Hugo.
> But not all filesystem follows the
在 2015年09月29日 18:33, Eryu Guan 写道:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 06:16:11PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
+
+if [ "x$orig_extent_nr" != "x$new_extent_nr" ]; then
+ echo "number of extents mis-match after bull fallocate"
print out the $orig_extent_nr and $new_extent_nr in this failure case? I
在 2015年09月29日 18:24, Filipe Manana 写道:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
在 2015年09月29日 18:00, Hugo Mills 写道:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Normally, a bull fallocate call on a fully written and synced file
should not
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Normally, a bull fallocate call on a fully written and synced file
> should not add an extent.
>
> But not all filesystem follows the correct behavior.
>
> Btrfs has a bug to always truncate the last page if the fallocate start
>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 06:13:37PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> 在 2015年09月29日 18:00, Hugo Mills 写道:
> >On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>Normally, a bull fallocate call on a fully written and synced file
> >>should not add an extent.
> >
> >What's a "bull"
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 06:16:11PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
> >>+
> >>+if [ "x$orig_extent_nr" != "x$new_extent_nr" ]; then
> >>+ echo "number of extents mis-match after bull fallocate"
> >
> >print out the $orig_extent_nr and $new_extent_nr in this failure case? I
> >think it's useful to see
在 2015年09月29日 17:55, Eryu Guan 写道:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Normally, a bull fallocate call on a fully written and synced file
should not add an extent.
But not all filesystem follows the correct behavior.
Btrfs has a bug to always truncate the last page if
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Normally, a bull fallocate call on a fully written and synced file
> should not add an extent.
Why not? Filesystems can do whatever they want with extents during
a fallocate call. e.g. if the blocks are shared, then fallocate
might
Dave Chinner wrote on 2015/09/30 14:20 +1000:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 09:05:15AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Dave Chinner wrote on 2015/09/30 07:51 +1000:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Normally, a bull fallocate call on a fully written and synced file
should not
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 09:05:15AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> Dave Chinner wrote on 2015/09/30 07:51 +1000:
> >On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>Normally, a bull fallocate call on a fully written and synced file
> >>should not add an extent.
> >
> >Why not?
Tsutomu Itoh wrote on 2015/09/30 10:45 +0900:
On 2015/09/30 10:05, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Dave Chinner wrote on 2015/09/30 07:51 +1000:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Normally, a bull fallocate call on a fully written and synced file
should not add an extent.
Why
On 2015/09/30 10:05, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Dave Chinner wrote on 2015/09/30 07:51 +1000:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Normally, a bull fallocate call on a fully written and synced file
should not add an extent.
Why not? Filesystems can do whatever they want with
Dave Chinner wrote on 2015/09/30 07:51 +1000:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:34:24PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Normally, a bull fallocate call on a fully written and synced file
should not add an extent.
Why not? Filesystems can do whatever they want with extents during
a fallocate call. e.g. if
18 matches
Mail list logo