On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:43:46PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 16-11-10 12:16:11, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Mon 15-11-10 12:05:18, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c > > > index 4197b9e..ab8dedf 100644 > > > --- a/fs/open.c > > > +++ b/fs/open.c > > > @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ int do_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len) > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > /* Return error if mode is not supported */ > > > - if (mode && !(mode & FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE)) > > > + if (mode && (mode & ~(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE))) > > Why not just: > > if (mode & ~(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)) ? > And BTW, since FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE does not change the file size, should > not we enforce that FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE is / is not set? I don't mind too > much which way but keeping it ambiguous (ignored) in the interface usually > proves as a bad idea in future when we want to further extend the interface... > Yeah I went back and forth on this. KEEP_SIZE won't change the behavior of PUNCH_HOLE since PUNCH_HOLE implicitly means keep the size. I figured since its "mode" and not "flags" it would be ok to make either way accepted, but if you prefer PUNCH_HOLE means you have to have KEEP_SIZE set then I'm cool with that, just let me know one way or the other. Thanks, Josef _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
