xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: add SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA flags
From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:44:20 +0200
Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=E1G+bvTmNa5IQRQwlWM4LZM/Zi6znGqL97VpoD/2UE8=; b=MgMtA2CegnHA/OajCo66rZhX9yrumkKIkVCZGHCTj3NBXu9vAm3Isv5CS4NZcQPuxK fCV0IaEVRQS2Y5CXqJ+x0udy2oyQu/tUvA9wnUKZpQdhM1LTRcdKDMIQvu1/Yom5g9eE Z8EU1+NSAxDIn3MnlZ20+FbIgo+z+jp+z8DeE=
In-reply-to: <4E52C890.1060600@xxxxxxxxxx>
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> <4E52C890.1060600@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; it; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 SUSE/3.1.11 Thunderbird/3.1.11
Il 22/08/2011 23:22, Sunil Mushran ha scritto:
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.
http://oss.oracle.com/~smushran/seek_data/


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?


Sorry, I was reading the results in a wrong way.

Marco

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