| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/2] fiemap: filesystem free space mapping |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 25 Oct 2012 06:15:15 +1100 |
| Cc: | Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20121024150951.GA24318@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1350537079-16246-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20121023123044.GG7341@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20121023215313.GQ4291@dastard> <20121024114711.GB11262@shiny> <20121024150951.GA24318@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:09:51AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 07:47:17AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > I'm all for it in the main fiemap call, it makes much more sense for the > > users I think. > > How so? Current fiemap is a per-inode information, Daves new call is > per-fs. Making one a flag of another is a gross user interface. In > addition we're bound to get issue where filesystems fail to wire up > fiemap to the tons of different iops just for this operation, or > accidentally wire up "real" fiemap to things like special files or > pipes. > > Btw, I'd like t orestate that I really love to see this functionality in > the VFS, just not multiplexed over FIEMAP. That's fine. I just wanted to clarify what you were asking. FIEMAPFS it is, then... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [no subject], U N/WORLD BANK ORGANIZATION. |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH v5 06/10] xfs: add XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS ioctl, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/2] fiemap: filesystem free space mapping, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 1/3] Add new standard loop handling functions, Tomas Racek |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |