On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Josef, > Btrfs doesn't have the ability to punch holes yet, so make sure we return > EOPNOTSUPP if we try to use hole punching through fallocate. This support can > be added later. Thanks, > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/btrfs/inode.c | 4 ++++ > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c > index 78877d7..c590add 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c > @@ -6936,6 +6936,10 @@ static long btrfs_fallocate(struct inode *inode, int mode, > alloc_start = offset & ~mask; > alloc_end = (offset + len + mask) & ~mask; > > + /* We only support the FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE mode */ > + if (mode && (mode & FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE)) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + This test looks rather odd. Why do we need to test that mode is non-zero AND that mode has a specific bit set? Is there a missing ! here? -- 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
