[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <493EA3AB.2080308@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:58:19 -0600
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....EDU>
CC: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Getting direct support for fallocate(2) into glibc
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Hey Eric,
>
> Can you or Ric put in a good word with Ulrich (through appropriate Red
> Hat channels, if that would be helpful) for this glibc enhancement request:
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7083
>
> Given that glibc 2.9 was just released, presumably this won't show up
> until glibc 2.10, and it'll probably be a *long* time before it this
> will show up in real distributions, but it would be good to get this
> into functionality into glibc ASAP.
Hm... I thought it was already there. posix_fallocate() is indeed
calling sys_fallocate; doing a very simple test:
fd = open("testfile", O_RDWR|O_CREAT);
error = posix_fallocate(fd, 0, 16384);
and then asking xfs about the allocation (sorry for the xfs, but
xfs_bmap is still so handy for this...):
# xfs_bmap -vv testfile
testfile:
EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL FLAGS
0: [0..31]: 34984576..34984607 2 (1256112..1256143) 32 10000
FLAG Values:
010000 Unwritten preallocated extent
it looks like it's doing the Right Thing. This is on:
# rpm -q glibc
glibc-2.9-2.x86_64
... oh, ok, but plain old fallocate() isn't yet hooked up, odd.
# gcc -o test-fallocate test-fallocate.c
/tmp/ccQTk6an.o: In function `main':
test-fallocate.c:(.text+0x3e): undefined reference to `fallocate'
Especially odd because we have a man page shipping, but no actual
implemented interface :) OK, I'll go bug people.
-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