[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ECDB6E6.40304@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:15:50 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [V3 PATCH 1/2] tmpfs: add fallocate support
于 2011年11月24日 06:20, Hugh Dickins 写道:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>
>> Why do we need to undo anyway?
...
> Another answer would be: if fallocate() had been defined to return
> the length that has been successfully allocated (as write() returns
> the length written), then it would be reasonable to return partial
> length instead of failing with ENOSPC, and not undo. But it was
> defined to return -1 on failure or 0 on success, so cannot report
> partial success.
>
> Another answer would be: if the disk is near full, it's not good
> for a fallocate() to fail with -ENOSPC while nonetheless grabbing
> all the remaining blocks; even worse if another fallocate() were
> racing with it.
Exactly, fallocate() should not make the bad situation even worse.
Thanks.
--
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