On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 09:06:25AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:37:43AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: > > + /* > > + * There is no need to overlap collapse range with EOF, in which case > > + * it is effectively a truncate operation > > + */ > > + if ((mode & FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) && > > + (offset + len >= i_size_read(inode))) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > I wonder if we should just translate a collapse range that is > equivalent to a truncate operation to, in fact, be a truncate > operation? Trying to collapse a range that extends beyond EOF, IMO, is likely to only happen if the DVR/NLE application is buggy. Hence I think that telling the application it is doing something that is likely to be wrong is better than silently truncating the file.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
