lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
    On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:43:46PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
    > On Tue 16-11-10 12:16:11, Jan Kara wrote:
    > > On Mon 15-11-10 12:05:18, Josef Bacik wrote:
    > > > diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
    > > > index 4197b9e..ab8dedf 100644
    > > > --- a/fs/open.c
    > > > +++ b/fs/open.c
    > > > @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ int do_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
    > > > return -EINVAL;
    > > >
    > > > /* Return error if mode is not supported */
    > > > - if (mode && !(mode & FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE))
    > > > + if (mode && (mode & ~(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)))
    > > Why not just:
    > > if (mode & ~(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)) ?
    > And BTW, since FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE does not change the file size, should
    > not we enforce that FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE is / is not set? I don't mind too
    > much which way but keeping it ambiguous (ignored) in the interface usually
    > proves as a bad idea in future when we want to further extend the interface...
    >

    Yeah I went back and forth on this. KEEP_SIZE won't change the behavior of
    PUNCH_HOLE since PUNCH_HOLE implicitly means keep the size. I figured since its
    "mode" and not "flags" it would be ok to make either way accepted, but if you
    prefer PUNCH_HOLE means you have to have KEEP_SIZE set then I'm cool with that,
    just let me know one way or the other. Thanks,

    Josef


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-16 13:57    [W:2.955 / U:0.164 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site