Re: Question on fallocate/ftruncate sequence

[Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>]

On Jul 23, 2009  11:05 -0700, Frank Mayhar wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 12:00 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Sorry I skimmed to fast, skipped over the fsck part.  But:
> > 
> > # touch /mnt/test/testfile
> > # /root/fallocate -n -l 16m /mnt/test/testfile
> > # ls -l /mnt/test/testfile
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Jul 23 12:13 /mnt/test/testfile
> > # du -h /mnt/test/testfile
> > 16M	/mnt/test/testfile
> > 
> > there doesn't seem to be a problem in fsck w/ block past EOF, or am I
> > missing something else?
> 
> I was taking Andreas' word for it but now that you mention it, I see the
> same thing.  Andreas, did you have a specific case in mind?

Ted and I had discussed this in the past, maybe he fixed e2fsck to not
change the file size when there are blocks allocated beyond EOF.  Having
a flag wouldn't be a terrible idea, IMHO, so that e2fsck can make a
better decision on whether the size or the blocks count are more correct.
I'm not dead set on it.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.