[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150427154133.65f58366@notabene.brown>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:41:33 +1000
From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrfs: set FS_SUPPORTS_SEEK_HOLE flag.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 02:48:55 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:46:49AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Missing patch 2 of the 3-patch series?
> >
> > Yes. :-)
> >
> > Do ext4 and xfs support this, do you know?
>
> Yes. As do f2fs, ocfs2, gfs2, ceph and NFSv4.2
Are you sure about NFSv4.2?
I see that it *can* report holes, but is there any guarantee that if you
create a new file and write only the 5th block, then READ_PLUS will reliably
report that the first 4 block are holes??
Because if it doesn't guarantee that, then NFSv4.2 doesn't fit the with the
others where SEEK_HOLE reliable reports holes.
On the other hand if NFSv4.2 *does* guarantee that then the current READ_PLUS
server patches are broken because they just use vfs_llseek and assume that
trust what it says.
It would be really nice if SEEK_{DATA,HOLE} either reported holes reliably or
returned ENXIO, but I guess there was a goo reason not to do that.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists