[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070329163520.GA16632@tuatara.stupidest.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:35:20 -0700
From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>
To: "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com, suparna@...ibm.com,
cmm@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 05:21:26PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> int fallocate(int fd, loff_t offset, loff_t len, int mode)
Right now there are only two possible values for mode --- it's not
clear what additional values there will be in the future.
How about two syscalls? If we decide later on we need something more
complicated we can revisit this and *THEN* add another system call
which may end up being a superset of the other two.
I know that sounds somewhat icky but:
* it's fairly simple
* we get nice argument handling on all arches by dropping u32 mode
(don't we?)
* syscalls don't really cost a lot to keep about, they do cost in
terms on maintenance though, but in this case i don't see it being
all that much of a problem
* IMO badly/over designed syscalls are going to be a bigger problem
long term
Given that *NO* single fs in mainline right now can *reliably* use
this functionality for a while maybe whatever solution people come up
with next should sit in -mm for a while? At least that gives people
exposure to it and a chance to make some changes as once it's merged
to mainline it's pretty hard to change.
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists