On 09/22/2015 07:44 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 04:30:14PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
>> From: Zach Brown <zab@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> +/*
>> + * copy_file_range() differs from regular file read and write in that it
>> + * specifically allows return partial success. When it does so is up to
>> + * the copy_file_range method.
>> + */
>> +ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
>> + struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out,
>> + size_t len, int flags)
>
> Is the signed type for flags correct? I had the impression that it's
> usually good to have unsigned int/long for flags, this can be seen
> frequently in the vfs/fs code. Mainly for consistency.
I'm all for consistency! I'll change the function to take an unsigned int.
Thanks,
Anna
>
>> + ret = file_in->f_op->copy_file_range(file_in, pos_in, file_out, pos_out,
>> + len, flags);
>
> int -> unsigned int
>
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(vfs_copy_file_range);
>> +
>> +SYSCALL_DEFINE6(copy_file_range, int, fd_in, loff_t __user *, off_in,
>> + int, fd_out, loff_t __user *, off_out,
>> + size_t, len, unsigned int, flags)
>
> the syscal takes unsigned int
>
>> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
>> @@ -1642,6 +1642,7 @@ struct file_operations {
>> #ifndef CONFIG_MMU
>> unsigned (*mmap_capabilities)(struct file *);
>> #endif
>> + ssize_t (*copy_file_range)(struct file *, loff_t, struct file *, loff_t, size_t, int);
>
> switch to unsigned
>
>> +extern ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *, loff_t , struct file *,
>> + loff_t, size_t, int);
>
> and 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
