On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 02:12:29PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: <snip> > I guess there was miscommunication > > As Olga wrote, you have to place this short-circuit in > nfs4_copy_file_range() if you remove it from here. > It is NOT SAFE to pass zero length to nfs4_copy_file_range(). > > I apologize if you inferred from my response that you don't need to > do that. Yeah, I totally misread your email. But yeah I understand the issue and I'll take a look into that. Although this will need to go back to my TODO pile for next week. > My intention was, not knowing if and when your patch will be picked up, > (a volunteer to pick it pick never showed up...) Right, and this brings the question that this has been dragging already for a while now. And I feel like I'm approaching my last attempt before giving up. If no one is picking this patch there's no point continue wasting more time with it (mine and all the other people helping with reviews and testing). Anyway... I'll try to get back to this during next week. Cheers, -- Luís > I think that nfs client developers should make sure that the zero length > check is added to nfs code as fail safety, because the semantics > of the vfs method and the NFS protocol command do not match. > > Thanks, > Amir.
