Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:15:50 +0800 | From | Cong Wang <> | Subject | Re: [V3 PATCH 1/2] tmpfs: add fallocate support |
| |
于 2011年11月24日 06:20, Hugh Dickins 写道: > 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |