On 02/01/2012 03:22 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 01/29/12 02:35, Jeff Liu wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Sorry for the delay!! I just got back from vacation. >> >> This is the V6 to introduce SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE support to XFS. >> As we have discussed previously, I have removed the dirty data probing >> stuff and just treating unwritten extents as data in this post. >> >> Changes to V6: >> -------------- >> * remove xfs_has_unwritten_buffer() for now. >> * xfs_bmapi_read() returns the br_state == XFS_EXT_NORM for a hole, so >> we need to check its startblock is not a "nullstartblock" in this case. >> * call i_size_read() after taking the ilock shared, otherwise, isize >> could be stale. >> * remove "ifp = XFS_IFORK_PTR(ip, XFS_DATA_FORK)" from xfs_seek_data() >> since it will not used. >> * in xfs_file_llseek(), return -EINVAL rather than -EOPNOTSUPP if >> whence is not valid according to http://linux.die.net/man/2/lseek. >> * s/int lock/uint lock/ in both xfs_seek_data() and xfs_seek_hole(). >> * s/out_lock/out_unlock/ in both functions too. >> >> Tests: >> ------ >> * seek_sanity_tester: >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.xfs.general/42514 >> >> *seek_copy_tester: >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.xfs.general/42522 >> >> >> Thank you! >> -Jeff >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jie Liu<jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 168 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> 1 files changed, 167 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c >> index 753ed9b..41a045f 100644 >> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c >> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c >> +STATIC loff_t >> +xfs_seek_data( > <deleted> >> + error = xfs_bmapi_read(ip, fsbno, len - fsbno, map,&nmap, >> + XFS_BMAPI_ENTIRE); >> + if (error) >> + goto out_unlock; > > >> +STATIC loff_t >> +xfs_seek_hole( > <deleted> >> + error = xfs_bmap_first_unused(NULL, ip, 1,&fsbno, XFS_DATA_FORK); >> + if (error) >> + goto out_unlock; > > The code looks good for the reduced problem. It test correctly. I am > still finding holes only if they start on a 16KB boundary which we > discussed before. I mention it in case more advanced test cases are > generated. > > Question: > If the routines that are looking for extents/hole return an error (I see > EFSCORRUPTED, EAGAIN, ENOMEM, EIO as possible errors in these routines), > should you convert them to an error such as EIO? There is no specific > error mention in the lseek manual page. Thanks for your review! The 'errno' should be convert to -ENXIO in those cases(this is the way I observed from Btrfs and OCFS2), I'll take care of it in next post. Thanks, -Jeff > > --Mark Tinguely. > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
