On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:01:45PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:54 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 01:07:11PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:54 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:28:53AM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > > > > > From: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > I have some idea we've had some discussion about this before, but if so > > > > I've forgotten the conclusion. Could we have more of a changelog?: > > > > > > > > - isn't there a race condition, or is there something preventing > > > > the file size from changing here? > > > > > > No there is nothing preventing the size from changing. Just like there > > > is nothing that prevents the file from changing if you are doing a > > > traditional copy either. > > > > > > > - why are we doing this? Does this change the behavior of > > > > copy_file_range()? > > > > > > We are doing this because 1. NFS spec and 2. copy_file_range semantics > > > mandate that too. There is a whole different discussion under the > > > client-side patch for this where the plan now is that VFS themselves > > > are interested in making sure they are indeed enforcing the check > > > stated by the documentation of copy_file_range call which states > > > "copying a range beyond the end of the file" is EINVAL. I recall you > > > argued for a "short" read instead of a EINVAL but unless VFS community > > > is convinced to change it it'll be enforced (soon). > > > > OK. Let's just make sure the reasoning's mentioned in the changelog, > > whatever we do. > > By the changelog, you mean the commit message? Right.--b.
