From daa35edc0a967d1f77c2e2c1346f57d04371487a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:59:01 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] uml: remove empty hostfs_truncate method Calling truncate() on hostfs spits a kernel warning "Something isn't implemented here", but it still works fine. Indeed, hostfs i_op->truncate doesn't do anything. But hostfs_setattr() -> set_attr() correctly detects ATTR_SIZE and calls truncate() on the host. So we should be safe (using ftruncate() may be better, in case the file is unlinked on the host, but we aren't sure to have the file open for writing, and reopening it would cause the same races; plus nobody should expect UML to be so careful). So, the warning is wrong, because the current implementation is working. Al, am I correct, and can the warning be therefore dropped? CC: Al Viro Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- fs/hostfs/hostfs_kern.c | 7 ------- 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/hostfs/hostfs_kern.c b/fs/hostfs/hostfs_kern.c index 59c5062cd63f..dd7113106269 100644 --- a/fs/hostfs/hostfs_kern.c +++ b/fs/hostfs/hostfs_kern.c @@ -793,11 +793,6 @@ int hostfs_rename(struct inode *from_ino, struct dentry *from, return(err); } -void hostfs_truncate(struct inode *ino) -{ - not_implemented(); -} - int hostfs_permission(struct inode *ino, int desired, struct nameidata *nd) { char *name; @@ -894,7 +889,6 @@ static struct inode_operations hostfs_iops = { .rmdir = hostfs_rmdir, .mknod = hostfs_mknod, .rename = hostfs_rename, - .truncate = hostfs_truncate, .permission = hostfs_permission, .setattr = hostfs_setattr, .getattr = hostfs_getattr, @@ -910,7 +904,6 @@ static struct inode_operations hostfs_dir_iops = { .rmdir = hostfs_rmdir, .mknod = hostfs_mknod, .rename = hostfs_rename, - .truncate = hostfs_truncate, .permission = hostfs_permission, .setattr = hostfs_setattr, .getattr = hostfs_getattr,