xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 4/7][TAKE5] support new modes in fallocate

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7][TAKE5] support new modes in fallocate
From: "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:45:16 +0530
Cc: Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, adilger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, cmm@xxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070712131334.GY31489@sgi.com>
References: <20070625214626.GJ5181@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070626103247.GA19870@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070630102111.GB23568@infradead.org> <20070630165246.GA5159@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070703100848.GA14936@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070703103107.GA29763@infradead.org> <20070703114650.GB14936@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070711090312.GA18301@infradead.org> <20070712072813.GA31260@in.ibm.com> <20070712131334.GY31489@sgi.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:13:34PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 12:58:13PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > 
> > Why don't we just merge the interface for preallocation (essentially
> > enough to satisfy posix_fallocate() and the simple XFS requirement for 
> > space reservation without changing file size), which there is clear 
> > agreement
> > on (I hope :)).  After all, this was all that we set out to do when we
> > started.
> > 
> > And leave all the dealloc/punch/hsm type features for separate future 
> > patches/
> > debates, those really shouldn't hold up the basic fallocate interface.
> > I agree with Christoph that we are just diverging too much in trying to
> > club those decisions here.
> > 
> > Dave, Andreas, Ted ?
> 
> Sure. I'll just make XFS work with whatever it is that gets merged.

Great. I will post the new patches soon.

--
Regards,
Amit Arora


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