xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 17/19] xfsprogs: disable truncating of files

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/19] xfsprogs: disable truncating of files
From: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:23:21 +0200
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <570E7129.3080900@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1458818136-56043-1-git-send-email-jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> <1458818136-56043-18-git-send-email-jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> <20160408000910.GB21804@dastard> <CACj3i73f_v=70pGrrLkRpHB-6UwiOOM2F9Sbu2aZMaJGmBLeiQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160408230843.GE567@dastard> <CACj3i71Grs8deYRtTaGmTmgBTrge-VKQKpn1Azj_y8=KQHWbgg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <570E7129.3080900@xxxxxxxxxxx>


On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/13/16 10:08 AM, Jan Tulak wrote:

...

> All rightâ, I will keep the O_TRUNC there. However, should it
> truncate the file every time, or should we offer a way how to avoid
> the file truncating? Until now, mkfs behaved differently based on
> whether -d file was given, or not. Your explanation suggests that we
> should truncate every time, right?

There are probably valid reasons to keep size as well as to truncate;
it's not immediately clear to me how we should handle it.

Honestly, at this point, in the interest of getting the other fixes in,
I think I might rather see the truncating behavior unchanged from what
we have today; we can tackle that as a separate problem at a later date.

What do you think?

âFor keeping the size, the easiest way might be to implicitly set xi.dsize (or whatever) to the current size. Of course, after a check for -d file,name,size combo. AFAIK (without looking to the code, I'm just ending for today and in the middle of shutting everything down :-) ), we âdo the truncation afterÂthe combo check. So this should be no big issue... I will look on this tomorrow, to know better.

Cheers,
Jan



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