On 4/13/16 11:23 AM, Jan Tulak wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > On 4/13/16 10:08 AM, Jan Tulak wrote: > > ... > > > All right, I will keep the O_TRUNC there. However, should it > > truncate the file every time, or should we offer a way how to avoid > > the file truncating? Until now, mkfs behaved differently based on > > whether -d file was given, or not. Your explanation suggests that we > > should truncate every time, right? > > There are probably valid reasons to keep size as well as to truncate; > it's not immediately clear to me how we should handle it. > > Honestly, at this point, in the interest of getting the other fixes in, > I think I might rather see the truncating behavior unchanged from what > we have today; we can tackle that as a separate problem at a later date. > > What do you think? > > For keeping the size, the easiest way might be to implicitly set > xi.dsize (or whatever) to the current size. Of course, after a check > for -d file,name,size combo. AFAIK (without looking to the code, I'm > just ending for today and in the middle of shutting everything down > :-) ), we do the truncation after the combo check. So this should be > no big issue... I will look on this tomorrow, to know better. I'm just saying; let's not change current behavior without good reason. If it requires a lot of discussion, let's keep current behavior in all cases for now, so that we can move the larger patchset forward. Thanks, -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
