Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:42:02 +0200 From: Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA does not work on zfs (with test case) Message-ID: <4F7C419A.4050607@fsn.hu> In-Reply-To: <4F7C14B3.3040705@FreeBSD.org> References: <4F7BFDD4.6080703@fsn.hu> <4F7C088D.4070803@FreeBSD.org> <4F7C0B41.20702@fsn.hu> <4F7C0CE4.2030408@FreeBSD.org> <4F7C129B.9010206@fsn.hu> <4F7C14B3.3040705@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 04/04/12 11:30, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 04/04/2012 12:21 Attila Nagy said the following: >> On 04/04/12 10:57, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> on 04/04/2012 11:50 Attila Nagy said the following: >>>> On 04/04/12 10:38, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>>>> on 04/04/2012 10:52 Attila Nagy said the following: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've started to experiment with SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA in python on a recent >>>>>> FreeBSD 9-STABLE/amd64 box and it quickly became evident that the program that >>>>>> works on Solaris doesn't work on FreeBSD. >>>>>> Python itself couldn't cause this, because it correctly issues the lseek, but >>>>>> taking the C test program from here: >>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/22/79 >>>>>> gives the same result (failure). >>>>> Please see this PR: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/164445 >>>>> If you can't figure out a patch from its contents, then I'll try to provide it >>>>> some time later today. >>>>> >>>> I will try it, but the e-mail above the patch is somewhat scary... >>> Sorry, I could not understand what you mean. >>> >> "The patch does the copy of the offset passed from the application >> correctly, and allows lseek(2) with SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE to be used on >> ZFS, but it is not a solution. I couldn't see a problem in the >> assembler of the copyin and copyout functions in >> sys/amd64/amd64/support.S, but I might be wrong, I'm no assembler >> expert." >> >> This is scary. :) > Did you see my comment in the PR trail? It explains why that approach is not > scary but entirely correct. > Due to some mailing issues it is re-ordered with the patch. > No, thanks for the clarification. I've tried that patch and the C test program runs fine. Will you commit this? And I think a regression test case would also be good. :) Thanks,
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F7C419A.4050607>