[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101109125350.GE27816@dhcp231-156.rdu.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:53:50 -0500
From: Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
To: Will Newton <will.newton@...il.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
joel.becker@...cle.com, cmm@...ibm.com, cluster-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Btrfs: fail if we try to use hole punch
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:05:34AM +0000, Will Newton wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Josef,
>
> > Btrfs doesn't have the ability to punch holes yet, so make sure we return
> > EOPNOTSUPP if we try to use hole punching through fallocate. This support can
> > be added later. Thanks,
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/inode.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> > index 78877d7..c590add 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> > @@ -6936,6 +6936,10 @@ static long btrfs_fallocate(struct inode *inode, int mode,
> > alloc_start = offset & ~mask;
> > alloc_end = (offset + len + mask) & ~mask;
> >
> > + /* We only support the FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE mode */
> > + if (mode && (mode & FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE))
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
>
> This test looks rather odd. Why do we need to test that mode is
> non-zero AND that mode has a specific bit set? Is there a missing !
> here?
Yeah I'm missing a !, I copy and pasted the wrong bit when I went around adding
this check to everybody, I'll be fixing it up for the next go around. Thanks,
Josef
--
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