xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v5 1/10] fs: Add new flag(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) for fallo

To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx>, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bpm@xxxxxxx, adilger.kernel@xxxxxxxxx, jack@xxxxxxx, mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx, lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ashish Sangwan <a.sangwan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/10] fs: Add new flag(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) for fallocate
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:36:06 +1100
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140222140625.GD26637@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <1392741464-20029-1-git-send-email-linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx> <20140222140625.GD26637@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 09:06:25AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:37:43AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > +   /*
> > +    * There is no need to overlap collapse range with EOF, in which case
> > +    * it is effectively a truncate operation
> > +    */
> > +   if ((mode & FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) &&
> > +       (offset + len >= i_size_read(inode)))
> > +           return -EINVAL;
> > +
> 
> I wonder if we should just translate a collapse range that is
> equivalent to a truncate operation to, in fact, be a truncate
> operation?

Trying to collapse a range that extends beyond EOF, IMO, is likely
to only happen if the DVR/NLE application is buggy. Hence I think
that telling the application it is doing something that is likely to
be wrong is better than silently truncating the file....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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