linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/6][TAKE7] fallocate() implementation in i386, x86

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]

Message-ID: <20070713144612.GA26879@infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:46:12 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com, tytso@....edu,
	cmm@...ibm.com, suparna@...ibm.com, adilger@...sterfs.com,
	dgc@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6][TAKE7] fallocate() implementation in i386, x86_64 and powerpc

On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 07:48:58PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> Ok. Since we have only one flag (FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE) and we do not want
> to declare the default mode (FALLOC_ALLOCATE), we can _just_ have this
> flag and remove the other mode too (FALLOC_RESV_SPACE).
> Is this what you are suggesting ?

Yes.

> Should we need a header file just to declare one flag - i.e.
> FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE (since now there is no point of declaring the two
> modes) ? If "linux/fs.h" is not a good place, will "asm-generic/fcntl.h"
> be a sane place for this flag ?

It might sound a litte silly but is the cleanest thing we could do by
far.  And I suspect there will be more more flags soon..

-
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