xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 5/6] Btrfs: fail if we try to use hole punch

To: Will Newton <will.newton@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Btrfs: fail if we try to use hole punch
From: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:53:50 -0500
Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, joel.becker@xxxxxxxxxx, cmm@xxxxxxxxxx, cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <AANLkTiksTsZqo1yUNVEJSiwE-7ccyWDv+wLvTZaoZOJ0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1289248327-16308-1-git-send-email-josef@xxxxxxxxxx> <1289248327-16308-5-git-send-email-josef@xxxxxxxxxx> <AANLkTiksTsZqo1yUNVEJSiwE-7ccyWDv+wLvTZaoZOJ0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:05:34AM +0000, Will Newton wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi Josef,
> 
> > Btrfs doesn't have the ability to punch holes yet, so make sure we return
> > EOPNOTSUPP if we try to use hole punching through fallocate.  This support 
> > can
> > be added later.  Thanks,
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  fs/btrfs/inode.c |    4 ++++
> >  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> > index 78877d7..c590add 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> > @@ -6936,6 +6936,10 @@ static long btrfs_fallocate(struct inode *inode, int 
> > mode,
> >        alloc_start = offset & ~mask;
> >        alloc_end =  (offset + len + mask) & ~mask;
> >
> > +       /* We only support the FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE mode */
> > +       if (mode && (mode & FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE))
> > +               return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> 
> This test looks rather odd. Why do we need to test that mode is
> non-zero AND that mode has a specific bit set? Is there a missing !
> here?

Yeah I'm missing a !, I copy and pasted the wrong bit when I went around adding
this check to everybody, I'll be fixing it up for the next go around.  Thanks,

Josef

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>