From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753845Ab1HVVWm (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:22:42 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]:59135 "EHLO acsinet15.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751233Ab1HVVWk (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:22:40 -0400 Message-ID: <4E52C890.1060600@oracle.com> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:22:24 -0700 From: Sunil Mushran User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marco Stornelli CC: Josef Bacik , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: rtcsinet22.oracle.com [66.248.204.30] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A02020B.4E52C89C.00CB,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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?