[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7026.1579129743@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 23:09:03 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Problems with determining data presence by examining extents?
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> wrote:
> > It would also have to say that blocks of zeros shouldn't be optimised away.
>
> I don't necessarily see that as a requirement, so long as the filesystem
> stores a "block" at that offset, but it could dedupe all zero-filled blocks
> to the same "zero block". That still allows saving storage space, while
> keeping the semantics of "this block was written into the file" rather than
> "there is a hole at this offset".
Yeah, that's more what I was thinking of. Provided I can find out that
something is present, it should be fine.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists