[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101116114346.GB4757@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:43:46 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
Cc: david@...morbit.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com, cmm@...ibm.com,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
On Tue 16-11-10 12:16:11, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 15-11-10 12:05:18, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
> > index 4197b9e..ab8dedf 100644
> > --- a/fs/open.c
> > +++ b/fs/open.c
> > @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ int do_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > /* Return error if mode is not supported */
> > - if (mode && !(mode & FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE))
> > + if (mode && (mode & ~(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)))
> Why not just:
> if (mode & ~(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)) ?
And BTW, since FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE does not change the file size, should
not we enforce that FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE is / is not set? I don't mind too
much which way but keeping it ambiguous (ignored) in the interface usually
proves as a bad idea in future when we want to further extend the interface...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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