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 p7NHoU2w206423 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:50:30 -0500 Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 000F71394868 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ijrM8Y62P04AuXDA for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so299271wyg.26 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E53E6F4.1040006@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:44:20 +0200 From: Marco Stornelli 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> <4E52C890.1060600@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <4E52C890.1060600@oracle.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: Sunil Mushran 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 Il 22/08/2011 23:22, Sunil Mushran ha scritto: > 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? > Sorry, I was reading the results in a wrong way. Marco _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs