On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:39:45PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 04:40:13PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > > Both of the file target's calls to vfs_fsync_range() got the end offset > > off by one. The range is inclusive, not exclusive. It would sync a bit > > more data than was required. > > > > The sync path already tested the length of the range and fell back to > > LLONG_MAX so I copied that pattern in the rw path. > > > > This is untested. I found the errors by inspection while following other > > code. > > Maybe it's time to move vfs_fsync_range to a more normal calling > convention? Yeah, I wanted to just fix the bugs before going too far. The current interface does seem like a bad fit. 3 of the 5 non-core callers got it wrong. They all generate start,end from off,count and fall back to LLONG_MAX. I'll put something together if no one beats me to it. - z -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
