On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 11:06:12AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 3/6/22 11:01 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 10:11:46AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> Yes, I think we should kill it. If we retain the inode hint, the f2fs > >> doesn't need a any changes. And it should be safe to make the per-file > >> fcntl hints return EINVAL, which they would on older kernels anyway. > >> Untested, but something like the below. > > > > I've sent this off to the testing farm this morning, but EINVAL might > > be even better: > > > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/block.git/shortlog/refs/heads/more-hint-removal Yup, I like that. > I do think EINVAL is better, as it just tells the app it's not available > like we would've done before. With just doing zeroes, that might break > applications that set-and-verify. Of course there's also the risk of > that since we retain inode hints (so they work), but fail file hints. > That's a lesser risk though, and we only know of the inode hints being > used. Agreed, I think EINVAL would be better here - jsut make it behave like it would on a kernel that never supported this functionality in the first place. Seems simpler to me for user applications if we do that. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
