Re: [PATCH] target/file: fix inclusive vfs_fsync_range() end

2014-10-07 Thread Nicholas A. Bellinger
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

Re: [PATCH] target/file: fix inclusive vfs_fsync_range() end

2014-10-07 Thread Zach Brown
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

Re: [PATCH] target/file: fix inclusive vfs_fsync_range() end

2014-10-06 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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

[PATCH] target/file: fix inclusive vfs_fsync_range() end

2014-10-06 Thread Zach Brown
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