[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45ED7C59.4050508@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 06:36:09 -0800
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, nscott@...nex.com,
"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, alex@...sterfs.com,
suzuki@...ibm.com, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate()
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> fallocate with the whence argument and flags is already quite complicated,
> I'd rather have another call for placement decisions, that would
> be called on an fd to do placement decissions for any further allocations
> (prealloc, write, etc)
Yes, posix_fallocate shouldn't be made more complicated. But I don't
understand why requesting linear layout of the blocks should be an
option. It's always an advantage if the blocks requested this way are
linear on disk. So, the kernel should always do its best to make this
happen, without needing an additional option.
--
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (252 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists