[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A67D36D.20708@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:05:17 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
CC: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>,
Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@...gle.com>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question on fallocate/ftruncate sequence
Frank Mayhar wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 15:54 -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
...
>> That said, we might need to have some kind of flag in the on-disk
>> inode to indicate that it was preallocated beyond EOF. Otherwise,
>> e2fsck will try and extend the file size to match the block count,
>> which isn't correct. We could also use this flag to determine if
>> truncate needs to be run on the inode even if the new size is the
>> same.
>
> After chatting with Curt about this today, it sounds like this needs two
> things. One is your flag in the on-disk inode, set in fallocate() to
> indicate that it has an allocation past EOF. E2fsck would use this to
> avoid "fixing" the file size to match the block count. Truncate would
> use this to notice that there are blocks allocated past i_size and get
> rid of them. It would be cleared by truncate or by ext4_get_blocks when
> using the last block of such an allocation.
>
> Does this make sense? Have I missed anything?
I guess I'm not totally sold on the new on-disk flag; we can work out
blocks past EOF w/o needing a new flag can't we?
-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