[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yy1yOGy7yF4AShDB@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 01:45:44 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@...omium.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@...gle.com>,
Daniil Lunev <dlunev@...gle.com>,
Evan Green <evgreen@...gle.com>,
Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_PROVISION
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 10:54:32PM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> [ mmc0blkp1 | ext4(1) | sparse file | loop | dm-thinp | dm-thin | ext4(2) ]
>
> would be predicated on the guarantees of fallocate() per allocation
> layer; if ext4(1) was replaced by a filesystem that did not support
> fallocate(), then there would be no guarantee that a write to a file
> on ext4(2) succeeds.
a write or any unlimited number of writes?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists