[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v5 06/10] xfs: add XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS ioctl

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/10] xfs: add XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS ioctl
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:23:11 -0400
Cc: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20121022073422.GC2739@dastard>
References: <1349446636-8611-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <1349446636-8611-7-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121011141335.GY13214@xxxxxxx> <507749A2.4020206@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121015224626.GU24986@xxxxxxx> <20121015234902.GH2739@dastard> <20121016013901.GI2739@dastard> <20121017224004.GG1377@xxxxxxx> <507FF339.8020208@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121022073422.GC2739@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1
On 10/22/2012 03:34 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:16:57AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
>> On 10/17/2012 06:40 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>> FWIW, given the background cleanup code can be trivially verified to
>>>>> work (open, apend, close, repeat, wait 5 minutes) and is the
>>>>> functionality that is needed in mainline, having something to test
>>>>> the ioctls should not stop the patchset from being merged.
>>> Can we be assured that we'll get an xfstest for it eventually?
>> Absolutely. Getting a command into xfs_io to support such a test is now
>> the top of my todo list with regard to XFS. :)
> Here's a patch to the new xfs_spaceman program I'm writing that adds
> control for these ioctls.

Very cool, thanks. Catchy name for the tool as well, btw ;).

For some reason my mailer is stripping out the patch, but my only
comment is with regard to minlen. Shouldn't that variable be handled as
an unsigned? Now that I think of it, that makes me wonder if I should
make that a 64-bit unsigned in xfs_eofblocks..?


> Cheers,
> Dave.

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