On 02/07/12 01:40, Jeff Liu wrote:
Hi Mark,
On 02/07/2012 06:30 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 02/06/12 08:30, Jeff Liu wrote:
Introduce 280 for SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE copy check.
Signed-off-by: Jie Liu<jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
diff --git a/src/seek_copy_tester.c b/src/seek_copy_tester.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ddf683f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/seek_copy_tester.c
+static size_t
+full_write(int fd, const void *buf, size_t count)
+{
+ size_t total = 0;
+ const char *ptr = (const char *) buf;
+
+ while (count> 0) {
+ ssize_t n = write(fd, ptr, count);
+ if (n< 0) {
+ if (errno == EINTR)
+ continue;
Wouldn't you want to stop the write loop if interrupted?
As this routine was called "full_write" which means it is expect to write as much as it can.
So I would keep retrying if the process was interrupted by EINTR.
Would you please give some opinions whether this approach is not suitable in this circumstance?
Maybe I was thinking wrong. I was thinking if someone had killed the
test and the write was interrupted by the signal, then you would give up
the write loop.
--Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
