Open Stack

I thought posix_fallocate() is implemented by fallocate, so we may still
need to support it.

On 9/26/18, 6:10 PM, "Tao Peng" <bergwolf at hyper.sh> wrote:

>On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:32 AM, Shinde, Archana M
><archana.m.shinde at intel.com> wrote:
>> We have run the pjdfstest test suite in the past for POSIX compliance
>>and
>> seen quite a few failures with 9p.
>> An old issue documenting this:
>> https://github.com/clearcontainers/runtime/issues/828
>>
>> I think the pjdfstest will be a good place to start. Graham has
>>documented
>> this process here:
>> 
>>https://github.com/kata-containers/runtime/issues/279#issuecomment-394371
>>29
>> 9
>>
>> Basically one needs to run Kata Containers with the following
>>Dockerfile:
>>
>> FROM ubuntu
>>
>> RUN apt-get update && \
>>     apt-get -y install autoconf git bc libacl1-dev libacl1 acl gcc make
>> perl-modules && \
>>     git clone https://github.com/pjd/pjdfstest.git && \
>>     cd pjdfstest && \
>>     autoreconf -ifs && \
>>     ./configure && \
>>     make
>>
>> # and run using
>> #    prove -r .
>>
>>
>>
>> That test suite does not include the fallocate tests. But simply running
>> fallocate(1) in a Kata container today, fails with "Operation not
>> supported" with 9p.
>>
>For one thing, fallocate(2) is Linux specific and not part of the
>POSIX semantics. For another thing, FUSE file systems can support
>fallocate(2) by implementing the FUSE_FALLOCATE opcode.
>
>Cheers,
>Tao
>
>-- 
>bergwolf at hyper.sh