[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: add SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA flags

To: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: add SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA flags
From: Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:22:24 -0700
Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4E52984F.8050702@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <1309275199-10801-1-git-send-email-josef@xxxxxxxxxx> <4E4F814B.5070202@xxxxxxxxx> <4E4F865B.2010608@xxxxxxxxx> <4E4FD48B.8030101@xxxxxxxxxx> <4E4FE1B1.7010601@xxxxxxxxx> <4E51F24F.1050503@xxxxxxxxxx> <CANGUGtCi85Sgrr5R0E8iuN75ubbMX9txZMwnsvp4Wv3Xh+938g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4E527C7F.9040807@xxxxxxxxxx> <4E52984F.8050702@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11
On 08/22/2011 10:56 AM, Marco Stornelli wrote:
Il 22/08/2011 17:57, Sunil Mushran ha scritto:

The following test was used to test the early implementations.

Thank you very much!! I found another point. Your test fails with my implementation because here (http://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=415) says: "If whence is SEEK_DATA, the file offset shall be set to the smallest location of a byte not within a hole and not less than offset. It shall be an error if no such byte exists." So in this case I return ENXIO but the test expects another value. I have to say that there is a bit of confusion about the real behavior of this new feature :)

That's test 5.10, 5.12, 5.14. And it expects -ENXIO.

Which test is failing for you?

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