[Dochelp to bcc]
Thank you for your question. We have created a service request to review the
report below and assist further. The service request number is
116092214702946. An engineer from the Protocols team will contact you soon.
From: David Disseldorp [mailto:dd...@suse.de]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 2:57 AM
To: Interoperability Documentation Help
Subject: FSCTL_DUPLICATE_EXTENTS_TO_FILE questions
I've been testing FSCTL_DUPLICATE_EXTENTS_TO_FILE functionality against a
Windows Server 2016 server, and have noticed the following behaviour which
appears contrary to the [MS-FSCC] spec:
2.3.8 FSCTL_DUPLICATE_EXTENTS_TO_FILE Reply ...
Error Code == STATUS_NOT_SUPPORTED
a) Target file is sparse, while source is a non-sparse file.
b) The source range is beyond the source file's allocation size.
The destination range extends beyond the target file's allocation size.
The caller might need to increase the target's allocation size before
(a) appears to be reversed, in that STATUS_NOT_SUPPORTED is returned if the
source is sparse, while the target is non-sparse. However, if target is sparse
while the source is non-sparse, then FSCTL_DUPLICATE_EXTENTS_TO_FILE completes
(b) appears incorrect - issuing a FSCTL_DUPLICATE_EXTENTS_TO_FILE request where
the destination range extends beyond the target's allocation/file size (zero)
results in a successful response. However, the file size remains zero in this
One final query - are there any lock conditions where
FSCTL_DUPLICATE_EXTENTS_TO_FILE will return STATUS_FILE_LOCK_CONFLICT?
As is, FSCTL_DUPLICATE_EXTENTS_TO_FILE appears to completely bypass file locks.
cifs-protocol mailing list