Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc
From: David Chinner <hidden>
Date: 2007-05-12 08:01:57
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-xfs, lkml
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:quoted
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... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group