From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755851Ab1HWRuf (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:50:35 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:39267 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754839Ab1HWRu2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:50:28 -0400 Message-ID: <4E53E6F4.1040006@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:44:20 +0200 From: Marco Stornelli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; it; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 SUSE/3.1.11 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sunil Mushran 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> <4E52C890.1060600@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <4E52C890.1060600@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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