On 05/19/2011 02:13 AM, Tristan Ye wrote:
+ if (inode->i_size == 0 || *offset>= inode->i_size) { + ret = -ENXIO; + goto out_unlock; + }Why not using if (*offset>= inode->i_size) directly?
duh!
+ BUG_ON(cpos< le32_to_cpu(rec.e_cpos)); A same assert has already been performed inside ocfs2_get_clusters_nocache(), does it make sense to do it again here?
good catch
+ + if ((!is_data&& origin == SEEK_HOLE) || + (is_data&& origin == SEEK_DATA)) { + if (extoff> *offset) + *offset = extoff; + goto out_unlock;Seems above logic is going to stop at the first time we find a hole. How about the offset was within the range of a hole already when we doing SEEK_HOLE, shouldn't we proceed detecting until the next hole gets found, whose start_offset was greater than supplied offset, according to semantics described by the the header of this patch, should it be like following? if (extoff> *offset) { *offset = extoff; goto out_unlock; }
So if the offset is in a hole, then we set the file pointer to it. Same for data. The file pointer is set to the region asked at an offset that is equal to or greater than the supplied offset.
+ if (origin == SEEK_HOLE) { + extoff = cpos; + extoff<<= cs_bits;extoff already has been assigned properly above in while loop?
To handle the case when supplied cpos == cend. As always, excellent review. Thanks Sunil -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
