Return-Path: Received: from mx144.netapp.com ([216.240.21.25]:62082 "EHLO mx144.netapp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752157AbdCHReD (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:34:03 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: [RFC v1 01/19] fs: Don't copy beyond the end of the file From: Olga Kornievskaia In-Reply-To: <20170308172549.GA32011@infradead.org> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:32:12 -0500 CC: "J. Bruce Fields" , , Message-ID: <7FDA8E80-3C62-48BB-9E2B-195B4BA340C0@netapp.com> References: <20170302160123.30375-1-kolga@netapp.com> <20170302160123.30375-2-kolga@netapp.com> <20170302162221.GA6854@infradead.org> <20170303204747.GE13877@fieldses.org> <20170307234051.GA29977@infradead.org> <20170308170521.GA1020@fieldses.org> <20170308172549.GA32011@infradead.org> To: Christoph Hellwig Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > On Mar 8, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Christoph Hellwig = wrote: >=20 > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 12:05:21PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> Since copy isn't atomic that check is never going to be reliable. >=20 > That's true for everything that COPY does. By that logic we should > not implement it at all (a logic that I'd fully support) If you were to only keep CLONE then you=E2=80=99d lose a huge = performance gain you get from server-to-server COPY.=20=