On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 12:28:03PM -0500, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > I’m confused by the wording of “we can do … easily” . Is “can” = in the future? Currently, testing copy_file_range() on a btfs with argument of offset+len beyond the end of the file fail with EINVAL. Is NFS tweaking = revert the “MUST” in the spec for the check? The current clone and copy documents (which are our specs) require this behavior, so that is expected. But if we decided we want a variant of copy / clone that doesn't do this it would be very easy to implement in the local file systems. Only for NFS we'd get a failure back and would have to retry the clone based on the updated file size.
