[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DB1AC9D.3010706@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:28:13 -0700
From: Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@...cle.com>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@...hat.com>
CC: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: add SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA flags
On 04/22/2011 04:50 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> That blog also mentioned the useful idea of adding FIND_HOLE and
> FIND_DATA, not implemented in Solaris, but which could easily be
> provided as additional lseek constants in Linux to locate the start of
> the next chunk without repositioning and which could ease application
> programmer's life a bit. After all, cp wants to know where data ends
> without repositioning (FIND_HOLE), read() that much data which
> repositions in the process, then skip to the next chunk of data
> (SEEK_DATA) - two lseek() calls per iteration if we have 4 constants,
> but 3 per iteration if we only have SEEK_HOLE and have to manually rewind.
while(1) {
read(block);
if (block_all_zeroes)
lseek(SEEK_DATA);
}
What's wrong with the above? If this is the case, even SEEK_HOLE
is not needed but should be added as it is already in Solaris.
My problem with FIND_* is that we are messing with the well understood
semantics of lseek().
And if generic_file_llseek_unlocked() treats SEEK_DATA as SEEK_CUR and
SEEK_HOLE as SEEK_END (both with zero offset) then we don't even
have to bother with the finding the "correct" error code.
--
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