On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 28 May 2010, Changli Gao wrote: >> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, 26 May 2010, Changli Gao wrote: >> >> fix updating sd->pos wrongly. >> >> >> >> In error path, we don't need to updating sd->pos, if the file isn't seekable. >> > >> > This patch is nonsense. Why should we handle sd->pos != 0 case >> > differently? >> > >> >> If the in file isn't seekable, its splice_read won't update *ppos, so >> in the error path, we'd better not change it too. Otherwise, some >> assumption will go wrong. > > That may be true, but the patch is still nonsense. > > Look, your patch is updating/not updating sd->pos based on whether it > is zero or not. It will prevent updating the position for sockets, > but it will also prevent updating the position for regular files if > the position is zero, which is really not what we want. I think you misread my patch. Before checking the sd->pos, sd->pos already is updated with the value returned by splice_read(), so if in file is seekabble, sd->pos is non-zero when I checking it. -- Regards， Changli Gao(xiaosuo@xxxxxxxxx) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
