[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <463F24DB.5040406@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 06:08:43 -0700
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, suparna@...ibm.com, cmm@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> is what glibc does ATM. Seems we violate the case where len == 0, as
> EINVAL in that case is "shall fail". But reading the standard to imply
> negative len is ok is too much guessing, there is no word what it means
> when len is negative and
> "required storage for regular file data starting at offset and continuing for len bytes"
> doesn't make sense for negative size.
This wording has already been cleaned up. The current draft for the
next revision reads:
[EINVAL] The len argument is less than or equal to zero, or the offset
argument is less than zero, or the underlying file system does not
support this operation.
I still don't like it since len==0 shouldn't create an error (it's
inconsistent) but len<0 is already outlawed.
--
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists