[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101119154119.GF10039@thunk.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:41:19 -0500
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
sandeen@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: Do not dispatch FITRIM through separate
super_operation
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 08:36:48AM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> There was concern that FITRIM ioctl is not common enough to be included
> in core vfs ioctl, as Christoph Hellwig pointed out there's no real point
> in dispatching this out to a separate vector instead of just through
> ->ioctl.
>
> So this commit removes ioctl_fstrim() from vfs ioctl and trim_fs
> from super_operation structure.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Trying to redirect this thread back to the original patches....
What do people think? Should I try to push these two patches to Linus
now, to make it easier for other file systems who might be interested
in implementing FITRIM functionality?
Or should I wait until the 2.6.37-rc1 window?
We're at -rc3, so a change like this is a bit late, but so far no one
else is using trim_fs besides ext4, and it will make life easier for
other file systems, so I'm willing to try pushing this to Linus if
there is consensus from other fs developers.
- Ted
--
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