[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call

To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call
From: JÃrn Engel <joern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:43:28 +0200
Cc: "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, torvalds@xxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, suparna@xxxxxxxxxx, cmm@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070427121003.GA7808@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
References: <20070329115126.GB7374@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070329101010.7a2b8783.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070330071417.GI355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20070417125514.GA7574@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070418130600.GW5967@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070420135146.GA21352@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070420145918.GY355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20070424121632.GA10136@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070426175056.GA25321@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070427121003.GA7808@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
On Fri, 27 April 2007 14:10:03 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> After long discussions where at least two possible implementations
> were suggested that would work on _all_ architectures you chose one
> which doesn't and causes extra effort.

I believe the long discussion also showed that every possible
implementation has drawbacks.  To me this one appeared to be the best of
many bad choices.

Is this implementation worse than we thought?


The grand essentials of happiness are: something to do, something to
love, and something to hope for.
-- Allan K. Chalmers

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