Re: RFC: should lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) return ENOTTY?

2019-08-16 Thread Rick Macklem
Ian Lepore wrote: >On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 09:12 -0600, Alan Somers wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 8:57 AM Ian Lepore wrote: >> > >> > On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 09:04 +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote: >> > > On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 02:03:10 + >> > > Rick Macklem wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi, >> > > > >> >

Re: RFC: should lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) return ENOTTY?

2019-08-11 Thread Rick Macklem
Ian Lepore wrote: >On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 09:12 -0600, Alan Somers wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 8:57 AM Ian Lepore wrote: >> > >> > On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 09:04 +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote: >> > > On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 02:03:10 + >> > > Rick Macklem wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi, >> > > > >> >

Re: RFC: should lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) return ENOTTY?

2019-08-11 Thread Ian Lepore
On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 09:12 -0600, Alan Somers wrote: > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 8:57 AM Ian Lepore wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 09:04 +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > > On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 02:03:10 + > > > Rick Macklem wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I've noticed that, if

Re: RFC: should lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) return ENOTTY?

2019-08-11 Thread Gary Jennejohn
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 08:57:04 -0600 Ian Lepore wrote: > On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 09:04 +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 02:03:10 + > > Rick Macklem wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've noticed that, if you do a lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) on a file > > > that > > >

Re: RFC: should lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) return ENOTTY?

2019-08-11 Thread Alan Somers
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 8:57 AM Ian Lepore wrote: > > On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 09:04 +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 02:03:10 + > > Rick Macklem wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've noticed that, if you do a lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) on a file > > > that > > > resides in

Re: RFC: should lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) return ENOTTY?

2019-08-11 Thread Ian Lepore
On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 09:04 +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 02:03:10 + > Rick Macklem wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I've noticed that, if you do a lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) on a file > > that > > resides in a file system that does not support holes, ENOTTY is > > returned. >

Re: RFC: should lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) return ENOTTY?

2019-08-11 Thread Gary Jennejohn
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 02:03:10 + Rick Macklem wrote: > Hi, > > I've noticed that, if you do a lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) on a file that > resides in a file system that does not support holes, ENOTTY is returned. > > This error isn't listed for lseek() and seems a liitle weird. > ENOTTY is

Re: RFC: should lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) return ENOTTY?

2019-08-10 Thread Alan Somers
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 8:03 PM Rick Macklem wrote: > > Hi, > > I've noticed that, if you do a lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) on a file that > resides in a file system that does not support holes, ENOTTY is returned. > > This error isn't listed for lseek() and seems a liitle weird. > > I can see a

RFC: should lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) return ENOTTY?

2019-08-10 Thread Rick Macklem
Hi, I've noticed that, if you do a lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) on a file that resides in a file system that does not support holes, ENOTTY is returned. This error isn't listed for lseek() and seems a liitle weird. I can see a couple of alternatives to this: 1 - Return a different error. Maybe