We have talked a bit about it on irc before but iirc we didn't end on any conclusion about it. Current fallocate behavior on XFS in case it hits -ENOSPC in the middle of the reservation is kind of weird now when these new blocks are allocated past EOF. We end up not changing the i_size to match the partial blocks allocated even if fallocate is not called with KEEP_SIZE. Such behavior is confusing some users of fallocate, and I've been talking to Eric if wouldn't be better to update the i_size to match the partially allocated blocks IF KEEP_SIZE has not been used. I know though that fallocate behavior is kind of undefined in this case, but I wonder if is there anything we could agree to improve to make it less confusing for fallocate users, or at least agree if this is the behavior we want in XFS. Maybe is worth to mention though, that by now, we release any unwritten extent past EOF at certain points in the code (/me don't remember exactly where by now). I didn't have time to come back to this issue before, so, sorry about the lack of more details, but let me know if anybody needs more specific details about this and I'll get more data. Cheers -- Carlos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
