[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <18ACAA85-8847-4B12-9839-F99FB6C7B3E4@dilger.ca>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:22:47 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>, david@...morbit.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, cmm@...ibm.com, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
On 2010-11-16, at 07:14, Jan Kara wrote:
>> Yeah I went back and forth on this. KEEP_SIZE won't change the behavior of PUNCH_HOLE since PUNCH_HOLE implicitly means keep the size. I figured since its "mode" and not "flags" it would be ok to make either way accepted, but if you prefer PUNCH_HOLE means you have to have KEEP_SIZE set then I'm cool with that, just let me know one way or the other.
>
> So we call it "mode" but speak about "flags"? Seems a bit inconsistent.
> I'd maybe lean a bit at the "flags" side and just make sure that only one of FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE is set (interpreting FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE as allocate blocks beyond i_size). But I'm not sure what others think.
IMHO, it makes more sense for consistency and "get what users expect" that these be treated as flags. Some users will want KEEP_SIZE, but in other cases it may make sense that a hole punch at the end of a file should shrink the file (i.e. the opposite of an append).
Cheers, Andreas
--
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