On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 04:30:14PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> From: Zach Brown <z...@redhat.com>
> +/*
> + * copy_file_range() differs from regular file read and write in that it
> + * specifically allows return partial success. When it does so is up to
> + * the copy_file_range method.
> + */
> +ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> + struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out,
> + size_t len, int flags)
Is the signed type for flags correct? I had the impression that it's
usually good to have unsigned int/long for flags, this can be seen
frequently in the vfs/fs code. Mainly for consistency.
> + ret = file_in->f_op->copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out,
> + len, flags);
int -> unsigned int
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(vfs_copy_file_range);
> +
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE6(copy_file_range, int, fd_in, loff_t __user *, off_in,
> + int, fd_out, loff_t __user *, off_out,
> + size_t, len, unsigned int, flags)
the syscal takes unsigned int
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -1642,6 +1642,7 @@ struct file_operations {
> #ifndef CONFIG_MMU
> unsigned (*mmap_capabilities)(struct file *);
> #endif
> + ssize_t (*copy_file_range)(struct file *, loff_t, struct file *,
> loff_t, size_t, int);
switch to unsigned
> +extern ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *, loff_t , struct file *,
> + loff_t, size_t, int);
and here
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
