[svn-r1276] H5D.c:

H5F.c:
H5Flow.c:
H5Fprivate.h:
    Joined work by Quincey, Robb and me to eliminate the initial writes
    of BOOTBLOCK when the file is first created.  Also, eliminate the
    repeatedly encoding of BOOTBLOCK in the flushing code.  Introduced
    the eof_written flag to indicate when it is not necessary to go
    do a dumb write at eof.
    (But something is not right if the userblock is not zero.)

H5Fmpio.c:
    Added code to allow setting the MPIO debug output mask via
    the environment variable H5F_mpio_Debug.

1 files changed, 15 insertions, 36 deletions

diff --git a/src/H5Flow.c b/src/H5Flow.c
index b3c0df1..3ac4cf1 100644
--- a/src/H5Flow.c
+++ b/src/H5Flow.c
@@ -284,39 +284,14 @@ H5F_low_write(H5F_low_t *lf, const H5F_access_t *access_parms,
     assert(buf);
 
     /* check for writing past the end of file marker */
-#ifdef HAVE_PARALLEL
-    if (H5F_LOW_MPIO==access_parms->driver &&
-	access_parms->u.mpio.use_types) {
-	/* rky 090902 KLUGE
-	 * In the case of fancy use of MPI datatypes, the addr and size
-	 * parameters have a very peculiar interpretation.
-	 * It is logically possible, but quite complex, to calculate
-	 * the physical offset that the last byte to be written will have
-	 * (assuming the write doesn't fail partway thru, which it may).
-	 * I don't yet fully understand the relationship between
-	 * the lf->eof processor-local variable and the file's true eof.
-	 * But presumably lf->eof has the correct value at this point,
-	 * and we should _not_ change it,
-	 * even if the file's true eof differs from the value of lf->eof.
-	 * So for now we DO NOTHING!
-	 * (Eventually, perhaps we should at least calculate the address
-	 * of the last byte of this write, and compare it to lf->eof.) */
-    } else {
-#endif /* HAVE_PARALLEL */
-	/* writing a simple block of bytes; can check for writing beyond eof */
-	tmp_addr = *addr;
-	H5F_addr_inc(&tmp_addr, (hsize_t)size);
-	if (H5F_addr_gt(&tmp_addr, &(lf->eof))) {
-#ifdef H5F_DEBUG
-	    if (H5DEBUG(F)) {
-		fprintf(H5DEBUG(F), "H5F: extending file w/o allocation\n");
-	    }
-#endif
-	    lf->eof = tmp_addr;
-	}
-#ifdef HAVE_PARALLEL
-    } /* end else */
-#endif /* HAVE_PARALLEL */
+    tmp_addr = *addr;
+    H5F_addr_inc(&tmp_addr, (hsize_t)size);
+    if (H5F_addr_gt(&tmp_addr, &(lf->eof)))
+        HRETURN_ERROR(H5E_IO, H5E_OVERFLOW, ret_value, "write past end of logical file");
+
+    /* Check if the last byte of the logical file has been written */
+    if (!lf->eof_written && H5F_addr_eq(&tmp_addr, &(lf->eof)))
+        lf->eof_written=1;
     
     /* Write the data */
     if (lf->type->write) {
@@ -366,10 +341,8 @@ H5F_low_flush(H5F_low_t *lf, const H5F_access_t *access_parms)
     assert(lf && lf->type);
 
     /* Make sure the last block of the file has been allocated on disk */
-    /* rky 980828 NOTE
-     * Is this really necessary? Could this be eliminated for MPI-IO files? */
     H5F_addr_reset(&last_byte);
-    if (addr_defined(&(lf->eof)) && H5F_addr_gt(&(lf->eof), &last_byte)) {
+    if (!lf->eof_written && addr_defined(&(lf->eof)) && H5F_addr_gt(&(lf->eof), &last_byte)) {
 	last_byte = lf->eof;
 	last_byte.offset -= 1;
 	if (H5F_low_read(lf, access_parms, &H5F_xfer_dflt, &last_byte,
@@ -380,6 +353,9 @@ H5F_low_flush(H5F_low_t *lf, const H5F_access_t *access_parms)
 	    H5F_low_write(lf, access_parms, &H5F_xfer_dflt, &last_byte,
 			  1, buf);
 	}
+        else 
+	    HRETURN_ERROR(H5E_IO, H5E_READERROR, FAIL,
+			  "low level flush failed");
     }
     /* Invoke the subclass the flush method */
     if (lf->type->flush) {
@@ -563,6 +539,9 @@ H5F_low_extend(H5F_low_t *lf, const H5F_access_t *access_parms, intn op,
     assert(size > 0);
     assert(addr);
 
+    /* Reset the EOF written flag */
+    lf->eof_written=0;
+
     if (lf->type->extend) {
 	if ((lf->type->extend) (lf, access_parms, op, size, addr/*out*/) < 0) {
 	    HRETURN_ERROR(H5E_RESOURCE, H5E_NOSPACE, FAIL,