Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc

[Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 09, 2007  21:31 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> 2) For FA_UNALLOCATE mode, should the file system allow unallocation
>    of normal (non-preallocated) blocks (blocks allocated via
>    regular write/truncate operations) also (i.e. work as punch()) ?
>    - Though FA_UNALLOCATE mode is yet to be implemented on ext4, still
>      we need to finalize on the convention here as a general guideline
>      to all the filesystems that implement fallocate.

I would only allow this on FA_ALLOCATE extents.  That means it won't be
possible to do this for filesystems that don't understand unwritten
extents unless there are blocks allocated beyond EOF.

> 3) If above is true, the file size will need to be changed
>    for "unallocation" when block holding the EOF gets unallocated.
>    - If we do not "unallocate" normal (non-preallocated) blocks and we
>      do not change the file size on preallocation, then this is a
>      non-issue.

Not necessarily.  That will just make the file sparse.  If FA_ALLOCATE
does not change the file size, why should FA_UNALLOCATE.

> 4) Should we update mtime & ctime on a successfull allocation/
>    unallocation ?

I would say yes.  If glibc does the fallback fallocate via write() the
mtime/ctime will be updated, so it makes sense to be consistent for
both methods.  Also, it just makes sense from the "this file was modified"
point of view.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.