From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n6GEJAfc020477 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:19:10 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id EC099139C750 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id SPYrk0jjKXmFjNwO for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A5F36FE.4050200@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:19:42 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] reduce bmv_count in xfs_vn_fiemap References: <4A5E2F01.7030107@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Olaf Weber Cc: xfs mailing list Olaf Weber wrote: > Eric Sandeen writes: > >> commit 6321e3ed2acf3ee9643cdd403e1c88605d7944ba caused >> the full bmv_count's worth of getbmapx structures to get >> allocated; telling it to do MAXEXTNUM was a bit insane, >> resulting in ENOMEM. > >> Chop it down to something reasonable, the caller can >> loop over this if the file has > 64 extents. > > It does seem to me that this will result in an unusal case for the > caller, in that it will get fewer extents than fit in the provided > buffer, yet should loop. Do current callers know that they can hit > this case, detect it, and loop accordingly? Or is this just pushing > the problem/regression to userspace? Well, userspace just keeps calling until it gets FIEMAP_LAST in the flags. But yeah, I forgot that we were given the nr of user extents, I'll send a better V2. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs