On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Matthew Wilcox <wi...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 05:07:52PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> +ssize_t vfs_dedupe_file_range_one(struct file *src_file, u64 src_pos, u64 
>> len,
>> +                           struct file *dst_file, u64 dst_pos)
> Why u64 instead of loff_t?

Peculiarity of f_op->dedupe_file_range().

I think a cleanup of copyfile/clone/dedupe interfaces would be good.
Perhaps merge them into one?  Or just merge copyfile/clone?  Even if
not merging it should make sense to make argument types and argument
order the same.


Reply via email to