[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TAKE 972756 - Implement fallocate.

To: Bhagi rathi <jahnu77@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: TAKE 972756 - Implement fallocate.
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:04:05 -0600
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <cc7060690711060927n1ea8a489n9f02029a11b73b00@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20071102024314.9BF3458C38F7@chook.melbourne.sgi.com> <cc7060690711051042h5c39c540mf60f95e2f67c7bd7@mail.gmail.com> <20071106001223.GY66820511@sgi.com> <cc7060690711060927n1ea8a489n9f02029a11b73b00@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20070530)
Bhagi rathi wrote:
> File is of size 1k.  A 4k block is allocated as file-system block size is
> 4k.
>  Preallocation happened from 1k to 256k. Now, it looks to me that we have
> un-written extents from 4k to 256k. There is no guarantee that data from 1k
> to 4k is all zero'es. Fallocate is updating size.  Hence on subsequent read,
> we can get garbage from 1k to 4k and all zero'es from 4k to 256k

You've tested this and found it to be true?


> Is the expectation here is application should take the responsibility of
> zero'ing
> data?  I still need to through fallocate requirements.

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