[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E52C890.1060600@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:22:24 -0700
From: Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@...cle.com>
To: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
CC: Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: add SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA flags
On 08/22/2011 10:56 AM, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> Il 22/08/2011 17:57, Sunil Mushran ha scritto:
>>
>> The following test was used to test the early implementations.
>> http://oss.oracle.com/~smushran/seek_data/
>>
>
> Thank you very much!! I found another point. Your test fails with my
> implementation because here
> (http://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=415) says: "If whence is
> SEEK_DATA, the file offset shall be set to the smallest location of a
> byte not within a hole and not less than offset. It shall be an error
> if no such byte exists." So in this case I return ENXIO but the test
> expects another value. I have to say that there is a bit of confusion
> about the real behavior of this new feature :)
>
That's test 5.10, 5.12, 5.14. And it expects -ENXIO.
Which test is failing for you?
--
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