On 4/13/16 11:23 AM, Jan Tulak wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto: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 after the combo check. So this should be
> no big issue... I will look on this tomorrow, to know better.
I'm just saying; let's not change current behavior without good reason.
If it requires a lot of discussion, let's keep current behavior in all
cases for now, so that we can move the larger patchset forward.
Thanks,
-Eric
|