[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48F4BFF6.8060404@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:51:18 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext3: sreadahead hooks
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:17:35AM -0400, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> >From 3d7a0ca0ee8a755251251bd9ddca0866c25acdc2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
>> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:12:08 -0400
>> Subject: [PATCH] ext3: sreadahead hooks
>>
>> The sreadahead program, used to make the OS boot faster, needs to know in
>> the approximate order in files are used during the boot process. This patch
>> adds the ext3 hook for this functionality, basically it stores "jiffies"
>> into the inode at allocation time, and exposes it via an EXT3 ioctl (yes I
>> know but ioctl seems fitting for this).
>
> Even if it's an ioctl there's absolutely no point in making this
> fileystem specific. Also the name is rather dumb and non-descriptive.
I have to agree, both the ioctl name and the new field are not very
descriptive - created_when sounds an awful lot like ctime but it's not.
and INODE_JIFFIES really doesn't mean anything at all w/o extra context.
But I'm trying to think of some nice names. :)
What about making a new struct inode field and doing this update in
new_inode(), and making it a generic ioctl. Are we ready to go that far?
-Eric
--
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