Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Ted Kline <> | | Subject | Re: fcntl(2) and other file systems like XFS | | Date | Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:58:06 -0600 (CST) |
| |
> > Jim Mostek writes: > > > > I don't see a callout from sys_fcntl into a file system specific routine > > (other than for file locking). There is a lock callout in > > the file operations that can be invoked in fcntl_getlk/fcntl_setlk/... > > (I'm looking in 2.3.42). But, this is different than file system specific > > fcntls. There is a call to sock_fcntl if the inode is a socket. But, I > > don't see a call for a file system specific fcntl in sys_fcntl.. > > > > XFS has several fcntls for things like preallocating space. This is used > > by some applications who want very large files. This let's a file system > > allocate the space all at once. > > > > Has the issue of a file_operation callout for fcntl gone around before? > > Anyone opposed to adding this? I don't think this belongs in the > > inode_operations. > > As I understand it, Linux does do this sort of thing via ioctl(), > not fcntl(). The logic is that fcntl() is for attributes of "file" objects. >
pre-allocating space is very much a "file oriented" request.
The semantics (IRIX & Unicos) require an active/existing file handle (fd), and an operation (fcntl) against that handle.
To me, an ioctl would be used for a filesystem-wide manipulation, perhaps like growing the filesystem...
-Ted
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |