[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45ED9B00.3020502@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 10:46:56 -0600
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
CC: 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
Subject: Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate()
Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> 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.
>
Agreed on both points. The hints would be for things like start block,
or speculative EOF preallocation, not contiguity, which I think should
always be the goal.
-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