On 08/10/15 02:40, Neil Brown wrote:
Anna Schumaker [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
@@ -1338,34 +1362,26 @@ 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, unsigned int flags)
{
- struct inode *inode_in;
- struct inode *inode_out;
ssize_t ret;
- if (flags)
+ /* Flags should only be used exclusively. */
+ if ((flags & COPY_FR_COPY) && (flags & ~COPY_FR_COPY))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ if ((flags & COPY_FR_REFLINK) && (flags & ~COPY_FR_REFLINK))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ if ((flags & COPY_FR_DEDUP) && (flags & ~COPY_FR_DEDUP))
return -EINVAL;
Do you also need:
if (flags & ~(COPY_FR_COPY | COPY_FR_REFLINK | COPY_FR_DEDUP))
return -EINVAL;
so that future user-space can test if the kernel supports new flags?
Seems like a good idea, yes.
Also that got me thinking about COPY_FR_SPARSE.
What's the current behavior when copying a sparse range?
Is the hole propagated by default (good), or is it expanded?
Note cp(1) has --sparse={never,auto,always}. Auto is the default,
so it would be good I think if that was the default mode for copy_file_range().
With other sparse modes, we'd have to avoid copy_file_range() unless
there was control possible with COPY_FR_SPARSE_{AUTO,NONE,ALWAYS}.
Note currently cp --sparse=always will detect runs of zeros and also
avoid speculative preallocation by using fallocate (fd, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE, ...)
thanks,
Pádraig.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html