xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate

To: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
From: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:43:46 +0100
Cc: david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, cmm@xxxxxxxxxx, cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, ocfs2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20101116111611.GA4757@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1289840723-3056-1-git-send-email-josef@xxxxxxxxxx> <1289840723-3056-2-git-send-email-josef@xxxxxxxxxx> <20101116111611.GA4757@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
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...

                                                                Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR

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