[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc
From: "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:46:52 +0530
Cc: Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@xxxxxxxxxx>, torvalds@xxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, cmm@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070512080157.GF85884050@sgi.com>
References: <20070420145918.GY355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20070424121632.GA10136@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070426175056.GA25321@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070426180332.GA7209@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070509160102.GA30745@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070510005926.GT85884050@sgi.com> <20070510115620.GB21400@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070510223950.GD86004887@sgi.com> <20070511110301.GB28425@in.ibm.com> <20070512080157.GF85884050@sgi.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
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
> all in a man page...

Hi Dave,

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.

Amit Arora

> Cheers,
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> Principal Engineer
> SGI Australian Software Group

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>