Re: [PATCH v5 1/10] fs: Add new flag(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) for
fallocate
[Posted March 5, 2014 by corbet]
| From: |
| Dave Chinner <david-AT-fromorbit.com> |
| To: |
| Theodore Ts'o <tytso-AT-mit.edu>, Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon-AT-gmail.com>, viro-AT-zeniv.linux.org.uk, bpm-AT-sgi.com, adilger.kernel-AT-dilger.ca, jack-AT-suse.cz, mtk.manpages-AT-gmail.com, lczerner-AT-redhat.com, linux-fsdevel-AT-vger.kernel.org, xfs-AT-oss.sgi.com, linux-ext4-AT-vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon-AT-samsung.com>, Ashish Sangwan <a.sangwan-AT-samsung.com> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [PATCH v5 1/10] fs: Add new flag(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) for fallocate |
| Date: |
| Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:36:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID: |
| <20140223213606.GE4317@dastard> |
| Archive‑link: | |
Article |
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@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
