[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140223213606.GE4317@dastard>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:36:06 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, bpm@....com, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
jack@...e.cz, mtk.manpages@...il.com, lczerner@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
Ashish Sangwan <a.sangwan@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/10] fs: Add new flag(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) for
fallocate
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 09:06:25AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:37:43AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * There is no need to overlap collapse range with EOF, in which case
> > + * it is effectively a truncate operation
> > + */
> > + if ((mode & FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) &&
> > + (offset + len >= i_size_read(inode)))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
>
> I wonder if we should just translate a collapse range that is
> equivalent to a truncate operation to, in fact, be a truncate
> operation?
Trying to collapse a range that extends beyond EOF, IMO, is likely
to only happen if the DVR/NLE application is buggy. Hence I think
that telling the application it is doing something that is likely to
be wrong is better than silently truncating the file....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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