[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45E83FCE.4040008@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:16:30 -0600
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com>
CC: "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, suparna@...ibm.com,
cmm@...ibm.com, alex@...sterfs.com, suzuki@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate()
Badari Pulavarty wrote:
>
> Amit K. Arora wrote:
>
>> This is to give a heads up on few patches that we will be soon coming up
>> with. These patches implement a new system call sys_fallocate() and a
>> new inode operation "fallocate", for persistent preallocation. The new
>> system call, as Andrew suggested, will look like:
>>
>> asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, loff_t offset, loff_t len);
>>
> I am wondering about return values from this syscall ? Is it supposed to
> return the
> number of bytes allocated ? What about partial allocations ?
If you don't have enough blocks to cover the request, you should
probably just return -ENOSPC, not a partial allocation.
> What about
> if the
> blocks already exists ? What would be return values in those cases ?
0 on success, other normal errors oetherwise..
If asked for a range that includes already-allocated blocks, you just
allocate any non-allocated blocks in the range, I think.
-Eric
-
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