From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p7MLMeZk093745 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:22:40 -0500 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 4AADC169B6D4 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:25:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id xjpGGNVAClw1FoxO for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:25:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E52C890.1060600@oracle.com> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:22:24 -0700 From: Sunil Mushran MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: add SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA flags References: <1309275199-10801-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> <4E4F814B.5070202@gmail.com> <4E4F865B.2010608@gmail.com> <4E4FD48B.8030101@oracle.com> <4E4FE1B1.7010601@gmail.com> <4E51F24F.1050503@oracle.com> <4E527C7F.9040807@oracle.com> <4E52984F.8050702@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E52984F.8050702@gmail.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Marco Stornelli Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josef Bacik , xfs@oss.sgi.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On 08/22/2011 10:56 AM, Marco Stornelli wrote: > Il 22/08/2011 17:57, Sunil Mushran ha scritto: >> >> The following test was used to test the early implementations. >> http://oss.oracle.com/~smushran/seek_data/ >> > > Thank you very much!! I found another point. Your test fails with my > implementation because here > (http://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=415) says: "If whence is > SEEK_DATA, the file offset shall be set to the smallest location of a > byte not within a hole and not less than offset. It shall be an error > if no such byte exists." So in this case I return ENXIO but the test > expects another value. I have to say that there is a bit of confusion > about the real behavior of this new feature :) > That's test 5.10, 5.12, 5.14. And it expects -ENXIO. Which test is failing for you? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs