From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Ext4: fail if we try to use hole punch Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:25:35 +0200 Message-ID: <4CE2783F.1020004@redhat.com> References: <1289840723-3056-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> <1289840723-3056-5-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: david@fromorbit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, cmm@us.ibm.com, cluster-devel@redhat.com, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com To: Josef Bacik Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1289840723-3056-5-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> List-ID: On 11/15/2010 07:05 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > Ext4 doesn't have the ability to punch holes yet, so make sure we return > EOPNOTSUPP if we try to use hole punching through fallocate. This support can > be added later. Thanks, > Instead of teaching filesystems to fail if they don't support the capability, why don't supporting filesystems say so, allowing the fail code to be in common code? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id oAGCOLU0043475 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 06:24:22 -0600 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 969F51C47AF7 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 04:25:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Pl4xAcEolqo7qrne for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 04:25:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4CE2783F.1020004@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:25:35 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Ext4: fail if we try to use hole punch References: <1289840723-3056-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> <1289840723-3056-5-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1289840723-3056-5-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Josef Bacik Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, cluster-devel@redhat.com, cmm@us.ibm.com, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On 11/15/2010 07:05 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > Ext4 doesn't have the ability to punch holes yet, so make sure we return > EOPNOTSUPP if we try to use hole punching through fallocate. This support can > be added later. Thanks, > Instead of teaching filesystems to fail if they don't support the capability, why don't supporting filesystems say so, allowing the fail code to be in common code? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:25:53 -0000 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 4/6] Ext4: fail if we try to use hole punch In-Reply-To: <1289840723-3056-5-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> References: <1289840723-3056-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> <1289840723-3056-5-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4CE2783F.1020004@redhat.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Josef Bacik Cc: david@fromorbit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, cmm@us.ibm.com, cluster-devel@redhat.com, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com On 11/15/2010 07:05 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > Ext4 doesn't have the ability to punch holes yet, so make sure we return > EOPNOTSUPP if we try to use hole punching through fallocate. This support can > be added later. Thanks, > Instead of teaching filesystems to fail if they don't support the capability, why don't supporting filesystems say so, allowing the fail code to be in common code? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function