[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=w2uV_Gy3zOapQishk_qqskQz72p2fnQMQZczx@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:40:26 +0100
From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, xfs@....sgi.com,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Check for immutable flag in fallocate path
2011/3/14 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 08:39:03AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> WTF? Why does append mode have any effect on whether we can punch
>> holes in a file or not? There's no justification for adding this in
>> the commit message. Why is it even in a patch that is for checking
>> immutable inodes? What is the point of adding it, when all that will
>> happen is people will switch to XFS_IOC_UNRESVSP which has never had
>> this limitation?
>
> xfs_ioc_space unconditionally rejects inodes with S_APPEND set for
> all preallocation / hole punching ioctls. This might be overzealous for
> preallocations not changing the size, or just extending i_size, but it's
> IMHO entirely correct for hole punching.
>
xfs_ioc_space is in the ioctl path, but we are talking about the
fallocate path. Both of them calls the xfs_change_file_space, isnt'it?
However we are agree about hole punching, the patch is already in
Linus's git tree.
Marco
--
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