lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: generic_file_write code segment in 2.2.18
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 02:58:58PM -0800, Asang K Dani wrote:
> --- Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 10:42:34PM +0000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > > No, because then you'd be skipping the updatepage() call if we
> > took a
> > > fault mid-copy after copying some data. That would imply you had
> > > dirtied the page cache without an updatepage().
> > >
> > > The current behaviour should just result in a short IO, which
> > should
> > > be fine.
> >
> > The problem is that the short write is not reported to the caller,
> > even when only zero bytes are copied (the page is corrupted anyways
> > though because cfu zeros the uncopied rest).
>
> I think it will be reported to caller, because when cfu copies 0
> bytes,
>
> bytes -= copy_from_user(dest, buf, bytes);
>
> will make 'bytes' zero. Since 'bytes' is 'zero' updatepage will not
> be called and status retains value '-EFAULT' and it breaks out of
> the while loop immediately.

Right for zero it is handled, but not for 1 byte copied but the rest zeroed
(which is a severe IO error)


-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.072 / U:0.952 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site