On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:08:24AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 06:12:52AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Realistically, though, I think an attempt to read beyond EOF for the > > > copy should result in behaviour like read() (i.e. return 0 bytes), > > > not EINVAL. The existing behaviour needs to change, though. > > > > I agree with this statement. So we don't we implement these semantics? > > No, we don't. Sorry - I was rushing that sentence out. It should have been: So why don't we implement these semantics? > > I will rework the patch series to make attempts to copy beyond the > end of the source file return 0 to indicate that there is no more > data to copy rather than return an error. Great, thanks!
