On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 03:23:55PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Sorry for my ultra-slow response to this. The u64 length seems ok to me > (or uint64_t, I don't care all /that/ much), but using loff_t as a > return type bothers me because I see that and think that this function > is returning a new file offset, e.g. (pos + number of bytes zeroed). > > So please, let's use s64 or something that isn't so misleading. > > FWIW, Linus also[0] doesn't[1] like using loff_t for the number of bytes > copied. Let's just switch to u64 and s64 then. Unless we want to come up with our own typedefs.
