[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0703021439360.23355@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:41:01 +0100 (MET)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, suparna@...ibm.com, cmm@...ibm.com,
alex@...sterfs.com, suzuki@...ibm.com,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate()
On Mar 1 2007 23:09, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>>
>> Given that glibc already implements fallocate for all filesystems, it will
>> need to continue to do so for filesystems which don't implement this
>> syscall - otherwise applications would start breaking.
>
>I didn't make it clear, but my point was to call generic_fallocate if
>the file system did not define i_op->allocate().
>
>if (inode->i_op && inode->i_op->fallocate)
> ret = inode->i_op->fallocate(inode, offset, len);
>else
> ret = generic_fallocate(inode, offset, len);
>
>I'm not sure it's worth the effort, but I thought I'd throw the idea out
>there.
Writing zeroes using glibc emu most likely means write() --
so generic_fallocate should be preferable (think splice).
Or does glibc use mmap() and it's all different?
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists