On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 06:01:57PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 04:33:01PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 08:39:50AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > > All I'm really interested in right now is that the fallocate
> > > _interface_ can be used as a *complete replacement* for the
> > > pre-existing XFS-specific ioctls that are already used by
> > > applications. What ext4 can or can't do right now is irrelevant to
> > > this discussion - the interface definition needs to take priority
> > > over implementation....
> > Would you like to write up an interface definition description (likely
> > man page) and post it for review, possibly with a mention of apps using
> > it today ?
> Yeah, I started doing that yesterday as i figured it was the only way
> to cut the discussion short....
> > One reason for introducing the mode parameter was to allow the interface to
> > evolve incrementally as more options / semantic questions are proposed, so
> > that we don't have to make all the decisions right now.
> > So it would be good to start with a *minimal* definition, even just one
> > mode.
> > The rest could follow as subsequent patches, each being reviewed and debated
> > separately. Otherwise this discussion can drag on for a long time.
> Minimal definition to replace what applicaitons use on XFS and to
> support poasix_fallocate are the thre that have been mentioned so
> far (FA_ALLOCATE, FA_PREALLOCATE, FA_DEALLOCATE). I'll document them
> all in a man page...
Did you get time to write the above man page ? It will help to push
further patches in time (eg. for FA_PREALLOCATE mode).
The idea I had was to push the patch with bare minimum functionality
(FA_ALLOCATE and FA_DEALLOCATE modes) and parallely finalize on other
new mode(s) based on the man page you planned to provide.
> Dave Chinner
> Principal Engineer
> SGI Australian Software Group