[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/7][TAKE5] support new modes in fallocate
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:03:12AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 05:16:50PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > Well, if you see the modes proposed using above flags :
> >
> > #define FA_ALLOCATE 0
> >
> > FA_FL_DEL_DATA is _not_ being used for preallocation. We have two modes
> > for preallocation FA_ALLOCATE and FA_RESV_SPACE, which do not use this
> > flag. Hence prealloction will never delete data.
> > This mode is required only for FA_UNRESV_SPACE, which is a deallocation
> > mode, to support any existing XFS aware applications/usage-scenarios.
> Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. There is no need to put every
> feature in the XFS ioctls in the syscalls. The XFS ioctls will need to
> be supported forever anyway - as I suggested before they really should
> be moved to generic code.
> What needs to be supported is what makes sense as an interface.
> A punch a hole interface does make sense, but trying to hack this into
> a preallocation system call is just madness. We're not IRIX or windows
> that fit things into random subcall just because there was some space
> left to squeeze them in.
> > > > > FA_FL_NO_MTIME 0x10 /* keep same mtime (default change on size, data change) */
> > > > > FA_FL_NO_CTIME 0x20 /* keep same ctime (default change on size, data change) */
> > >
> > > NACK to these aswell. If i_size changes c/mtime need updates, if the size
> > > doesn't chamge they don't. No need to add more flags for this.
> >
> > This requirement was from the point of view of HSM applications. Hope
> > you saw Andreas previous post and are keeping that in mind.
> HSMs needs this basically for every system call, which screams for an
> open flag like O_INVISIBLE anyway. Adding this in a generic way is
> a good idea, but hacking bits and pieces that won't fit into the global
> design is completely wrong.

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

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 ?


> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to
> More majordomo info at

Suparna Bhattacharya (
Linux Technology Center
IBM Software Lab, India

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-12 09:27    [W:0.151 / U:7.884 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site