[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070516123124.GA24299@amitarora.in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 18:01:24 +0530
From: "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>
Cc: torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com, suparna@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5][TAKE3] fallocate() implementation on i86, x86_64 and powerpc
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 05:42:46PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 01:33 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > This patch implements sys_fallocate() and adds support on i386, x86_64
> > and powerpc platforms.
>
> > @@ -1137,6 +1148,8 @@ struct inode_operations {
> > ssize_t (*listxattr) (struct dentry *, char *, size_t);
> > int (*removexattr) (struct dentry *, const char *);
> > void (*truncate_range)(struct inode *, loff_t, loff_t);
> > + long (*fallocate)(struct inode *inode, int mode, loff_t offset,
> > + loff_t len);
> > };
>
> Does the return value from fallocate inode operation has to be *long*?
> It's not consistent with the ext4_fallocate() define in patch 4/5,
I think ->fallocate() should return a "long", since sys_fallocate() has
to return what ->fallocate() returns and hence their return type should
ideally match.
> +int ext4_fallocate(struct inode *inode, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t
> len)
I will change the ext4_fallocate() to return a "long" (in patch 4/5)
in the next post.
Agree ?
Thanks!
--
Regards,
Amit Arora
>
> thus cause compile warnings.
>
>
>
> Mingming
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists