On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:

On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 09:06:25AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:37:43AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:

quoted

+	/*
+	 * 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 >= i_size_read(inode)))
+		return -EINVAL;
+

I wonder if we should just translate a collapse range that is
equivalent to a truncate operation to, in fact, be a truncate
operation?

Trying to collapse a range that extends beyond EOF, IMO, is likely
to only happen if the DVR/NLE application is buggy. Hence I think
that telling the application it is doing something that is likely to
be wrong is better than silently truncating the file....

I do agree with Ted on this point.  This is not an xfs ioctl added
for one DVR/NLE application, it's a mode of a Linux system call.

We do not usually reject with an error when one system call happens
to ask for something which can already be accomplished another way;
nor nanny our callers.

It seems natural to me that COLLAPSE_RANGE should support beyond EOF;
unless that adds significantly to implementation difficulties?

Actually, is it even correct to fail at EOF?  What if fallocation
with FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE was used earlier, to allocate beyond EOF:
shouldn't it be possible to shift that allocation down, along with
the EOF, rather than leave it behind as a stranded island?

Hugh

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>