Re: [V3 PATCH 1/2] tmpfs: add fallocate support

[Cong Wang]

ä 2011å11æ24æ 06:20, Hugh Dickins åé:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Why do we need to undo anyway?
...
> Another answer would be: if fallocate() had been defined to return
> the length that has been successfully allocated (as write() returns
> the length written), then it would be reasonable to return partial
> length instead of failing with ENOSPC, and not undo.  But it was
> defined to return -1 on failure or 0 on success, so cannot report
> partial success.
>
> Another answer would be: if the disk is near full, it's not good
> for a fallocate() to fail with -ENOSPC while nonetheless grabbing
> all the remaining blocks; even worse if another fallocate() were
> racing with it.

Exactly, fallocate() should not make the bad situation even worse.

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/