On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:25:40PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > But I wasn't really thinking of the offset > i_size case, just the
> > offset + len >= i_size case: which would end with i_size at offset,
> > and the areas you're worried about still
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:25:40PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:41:20PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 09:06:25AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > > >
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:25:40PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:41:20PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 09:06:25AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Feb
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:25:40PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
But I wasn't really thinking of the offset i_size case, just the
offset + len = i_size case: which would end with i_size at offset,
and the areas you're worried about still beyond EOF -
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:41:20PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > 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:
> > > > >
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:41:20PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > 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
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
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
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:41:20PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
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
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:41:20PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
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:
+ /*
+
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 &
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
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 >=
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 =
From: Namjae Jeon
This patch is in response of the following post:
http://lwn.net/Articles/556136/
"ext4: introduce two new ioctls"
Dave chinner suggested that truncate_block_range
(which was one of the ioctls name) should be a fallocate operation
and not any fs specific ioctl, hence we add
From: Namjae Jeon namjae.j...@samsung.com
This patch is in response of the following post:
http://lwn.net/Articles/556136/
ext4: introduce two new ioctls
Dave chinner suggested that truncate_block_range
(which was one of the ioctls name) should be a fallocate operation
and not any fs specific
16 matches
Mail list logo