On 02/07/12 01:40, Jeff Liu wrote:

Hi Mark,

On 02/07/2012 06:30 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote:

quoted

On 02/06/12 08:30, Jeff Liu wrote:

quoted

Introduce 280 for SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE copy check.

Signed-off-by: Jie Liu<redacted>

---

quoted

diff --git a/src/seek_copy_tester.c b/src/seek_copy_tester.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ddf683f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/seek_copy_tester.c

quoted

+static size_t
+full_write(int fd, const void *buf, size_t count)
+{
+    size_t total = 0;
+    const char *ptr = (const char *) buf;
+
+    while (count>   0) {
+        ssize_t n = write(fd, ptr, count);
+        if (n<   0) {
+            if (errno == EINTR)
+                continue;

Wouldn't you want to stop the write loop if interrupted?

As this routine was called "full_write" which means it is expect to write as much as it can.
So I would keep retrying if the process was interrupted by EINTR.
Would you please give some opinions whether this approach is not suitable in this circumstance?

Maybe I was thinking wrong. I was thinking if someone had killed the 
test and the write was interrupted by the signal, then you would give up 
the write loop.

--Mark.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs