On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 06:12:52AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Realistically, though, I think an attempt to read beyond EOF for the > > copy should result in behaviour like read() (i.e. return 0 bytes), > > not EINVAL. The existing behaviour needs to change, though. > > I agree with this statement. So we don't we implement these semantics? No, we don't. I will rework the patch series to make attempts to copy beyond the end of the source file return 0 to indicate that there is no more data to copy rather than return an error. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
