On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:05:34AM +0000, Will Newton wrote: > 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? Yeah I'm missing a !, I copy and pasted the wrong bit when I went around adding this check to everybody, I'll be fixing it up for the next go around. Thanks, Josef -- 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
