Re: [PATCH 4/5] ext4: fallocate support in ext4

Dave Kleikamp
2007-05-08T14:48:02Z

On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 16:22 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:24:37AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 17:37 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:31:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > > > So we don't implement fallocate on bitmap-based files! Well that's huge
> > > > news. The changelog would be an appropriate place to communicate this,
> > > > along with reasons why, or a description of the plan to fix it.
> > >
> > > Ok. Will add this in the function description as well.
> > >
> > > > Also, posix says nothing about fallocate() returning ENOTTY.
> > >
> > > Right. I don't seem to find any suitable error from posix description.
> > > Can you please suggest an error code which might make more sense here ?
> > > Will -ENOTSUPP be ok ? Since we want to say here that we don't support
> > > non-extent files.
> >
> > Isn't the idea that libc will interpret -ENOTTY, or whatever is returned
> > here, and fall back to the current library code to do preallocation?
> > This way, the caller of fallocate() will never see this return code, so
> > it won't violate posix.
>
> You are right.
>
> But, we still need to "standardize" (and limit) the error codes
> which we should return from kernel when we want to fall back on the
> library implementation. The posix_fallocate() library function will have
> to look for a set of errors from fallocate() system call, upon receiving
> which it will do preallocation from user level; or else, it will return
> success/error-code returned by the system call to the user.
>
> I think we can make it fall back to library implementation of fallocate,
> whenever posix_fallocate() receives any of the following errors from
> fallocate() system call:
>
> 1. ENOSYS
> 2. EOPNOTSUPP
> 3. ENOTTY (?)
>
> Now the question is - should we limit the set of errors for this purpose
> to just 1 & 2 above ? In that case I will need to change the error being
> returned here to -EOPNOTSUPP (from current -ENOTTY).

If you want my opinion, -EOPNOTSUPP is better than -ENOTTY.

Shaggy
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center