[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTiksTsZqo1yUNVEJSiwE-7ccyWDv+wLvTZaoZOJ0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 10:05:34 +0000
From: Will Newton <will.newton@...il.com>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
Cc: 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 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?
--
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