[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F95D65A.8070608@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:23:22 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...m.fraunhofer.de>
CC: linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Fan Yong <yong.fan@...mcloud.com>,
bfields@...hat.com, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...mcloud.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5 2/4] Return 32/64-bit dir name hash according to usage
type
On 4/23/12 3:52 PM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> On 04/23/2012 10:37 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
...
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/dir.c b/fs/ext4/dir.c
> index b867862..3a4988e2 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/dir.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/dir.c
> @@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ loff_t ext4_dir_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t
> offset, int origin)
> goto out_err;
>
> if (!dx_dir) {
> - if (offset > inode->i_sb->s_maxbytes)
> + if (offset > i_size_read(inode))
> goto out_err;
> } else if (offset > ext4_get_htree_eof(file))
> goto out_err;
I'm curious about the above as well as:
case SEEK_END:
if (unlikely(offset > 0))
goto out_err; /* not supported for directories */
The previous .llseek handler, and the generic handler for other filesystems, allow seeking past the end of the dir AFAICT. (not sure why you'd want to, but I don't see that you'd get an error back).
Is there a reason to uniquely exclude it in ext4? Does that line up with POSIX?
-Eric
--
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