| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: batched discard support |
| From: | Jamie Lokier <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:10:04 +0100 |
| Cc: | Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, liml@xxxxxx, jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20090820010552.GA22107@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20090816004705.GA7347@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090819203916.GA25296@xxxxxxx> <20090820010552.GA22107@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > So i'm torn about the 'syscall versus ioctl' issue, i'd > > like to avoid making interface design mistakes and i'd > > like to solicit some opinions about this. I've attached > > the perfcounters ioctl patch below. > > Only add a syscall if it has _one_ clear defined purpose, > which has kernel-wide meaning. One clear defined purpose which comes to mind is a "trim" or "punch" system call, for making holes in files as well as trimming block devices. Several other OSes have that capability on files. I don't remember - does TRIM guarantee the blocks read zeros afterwards? It would be tidy if it does, as it could have the same meaning with files. -- Jamie |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: batched discard support, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: batched discard support, Douglas Gilbert |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: batched discard support, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: batched discard support, Douglas Gilbert |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |