On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 16:40 -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> Both of the file target's calls to vfs_fsync_range() got the end offset
> off by one. The range is inclusive, not exclusive. It would sync a bit
> more data than was required.
>
> The sync path already tested the length of the range and fell
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:39:45PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 04:40:13PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> > Both of the file target's calls to vfs_fsync_range() got the end offset
> > off by one. The range is inclusive, not exclusive. It would sync a bit
> > more data tha
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 04:40:13PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> Both of the file target's calls to vfs_fsync_range() got the end offset
> off by one. The range is inclusive, not exclusive. It would sync a bit
> more data than was required.
>
> The sync path already tested the length of the range a
Both of the file target's calls to vfs_fsync_range() got the end offset
off by one. The range is inclusive, not exclusive. It would sync a bit
more data than was required.
The sync path already tested the length of the range and fell back to
LLONG_MAX so I copied that pattern in the rw path.
Th
4 matches
Mail list logo