[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070430055632.GR32602149@melbourne.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:56:32 +1000
From: David Chinner <dgc@....com>
To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, suparna@...ibm.com, cmm@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:25:59PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:47:02AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
>
> > For FA_ALLOCATE, it's supposed to change the file size if we
> > allocate past EOF, right?
>
> I would argue no. Use truncate for that.
I'm going from the ext4 implementation because the semantics
have not been documented yet.
IIRC, the argument for FA_ALLOCATE changing file size is that
posix_fallocate() is supposed to change the file size. I think
that having a mode for real preallocation and another for
posix_fallocate is a valid thing to do...
Note that the way XFS implements growing the file size after the
allocation is via a truncate....
> > For FA_DEALLOCATE, does it change the filesize at all?
>
> Same as above.
>
> > Or does
> > it just punch a hole in the file?
>
> Yes.
That's would what I did because otherwise you'd use ftruncate64().
Without documented behaviour or an ext4 implementation, I have to
ask what it's supposed to do, though ;)
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
-
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