Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:52:17 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kib@freebsd.org> To: Rick Macklem <rick.macklem@gmail.com> Cc: mjg@freebsd.org, FreeBSD CURRENT <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: should a va_bytes option be added to vn_getsize_locked()? Message-ID: <Ze4BYdWLtMc2Nc5Y@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CAM5tNy6L4M-vsA1Kc44A3fvziDeJAMVxTK58US0B6MVesqbkhA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAM5tNy6L4M-vsA1Kc44A3fvziDeJAMVxTK58US0B6MVesqbkhA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 04:59:49PM -0800, Rick Macklem wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to compare va_size to va_bytes in vn_generic_copy_file_range(), > as a heuristic to check for a sparse file (only works for non-compressed > file systems). > > The call to VOP_GETATTR(invp, ..) was replaced by vn_getsize_locked() > in vn_generic_copy_file_range(). > > To get va_bytes I can either modify the code to again use VOP_GETATTR() > or I could add an additional return argument to vn_getsize_locked(). > Since vn_getsize_locked() is descibed as a first step towards not using > VOP_GETATTR() it sounds like adding an agument to vn_getsize_locked() > is not the preferred alternative, but I thought I'd ask. For me it sounds as very specific usage. You might be better served by directly using VOP_GETATTR() then IMO.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Ze4BYdWLtMc2Nc5Y>