Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc
From: Mingming Cao <hidden>
Date: 2007-05-09 17:07:25
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-xfs, lkml
From: Mingming Cao <hidden>
Date: 2007-05-09 17:07:25
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-xfs, lkml
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 21:31 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
I have the updated patches ready which take care of Andrew's comments.
Will run some tests and post them soon.
But, before submitting these patches, I think it will be better to finalize
on certain things which might be worth some discussion here:
1) Should the file size change when preallocation is done beyond EOF ?
- Andreas and Chris Wedgwood are in favor of not changing the
file size in this case. I also tend to agree with them. Does anyone
has an argument in favor of changing the filesize ?
If not, I will remove the code which changes the filesize, before I
resubmit the concerned ext4 patch.If we chose not to update the file size beyong EOF, then for filesystem without fallocate() support (ext2,3 currently), posix_fallocate() will follow the hard way(zero-out) to do preallocation. Then we will get different behavior on filesystems w/o fallocate() support. It make sense to be consistent, IMO. My point of view, preallocation is just a efficient way to allocating blocks for files without zero-out, other than this, the new behavior should be consistent with the old way: file size update,mtime/ctime, ENOSPC etc. Mingming