linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC] Ext3 online defrag

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:33:06 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	adilger@...sterfs.com, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	David Chinner <dgc@....com>, Alex Tomas <alex@...sterfs.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Ext3 online defrag

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:25:30PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>   I see. So you mean that in our ext3meta filesystem we'd have a file
> named "add_this_extent_to_inode" and a file "reloc_inode_interval" and
> they'd be fed essentially the same info as the current ioctl interface and
> do the same thing as we currently do. Hmm, I don't find it that nice any
> more but yes, this would work.

It depends on the operation.  ext2meta[1] works fine for online
defrag, just exporting metadata objects and providing read(1)
and write(2) operations on them.  Adding 'trigger' files (like your
add_this_extent_to_inode) may make sense for some operations, indeed,
but we need to see the whole picture before really understanding
whether that interface is optimal.

	Jeff


[1] http://linux.yyz.us/misc/ext2meta.c
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html