Re: [PATCH 5/6] Btrfs: fail if we try to use hole punch

[Will Newton <will.newton@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> wrote:

Hi Josef,

> Btrfs doesn't have the ability to punch holes yet, so make sure we re=
turn
> EOPNOTSUPP if we try to use hole punching through fallocate. =A0This =
support can
> be added later. =A0Thanks,
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
> ---
> =A0fs/btrfs/inode.c | =A0 =A04 ++++
> =A01 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> index 78877d7..c590add 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> @@ -6936,6 +6936,10 @@ static long btrfs_fallocate(struct inode *inod=
e, int mode,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0alloc_start =3D offset & ~mask;
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0alloc_end =3D =A0(offset + len + mask) & ~mask;
>
> + =A0 =A0 =A0 /* We only support the FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE mode */
> + =A0 =A0 =A0 if (mode && (mode & FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE))
> + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +

This test looks rather odd. Why do we need to test that mode is
non-zero AND that mode has a specific bit set? Is there a missing !
here?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" i=
n
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html