linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070612061652.GA6320@amitarora.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:46:52 +0530
From:	"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Chinner <dgc@....com>
Cc:	Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...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, cmm@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc

On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 06:01:57PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 04:33:01PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 08:39:50AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > > All I'm really interested in right now is that the fallocate
> > > _interface_ can be used as a *complete replacement* for the
> > > pre-existing XFS-specific ioctls that are already used by
> > > applications.  What ext4 can or can't do right now is irrelevant to
> > > this discussion - the interface definition needs to take priority
> > > over implementation....
> > 
> > Would you like to write up an interface definition description (likely
> > man page) and post it for review, possibly with a mention of apps using
> > it today ?
> 
> Yeah, I started doing that yesterday as i figured it was the only way
> to cut the discussion short....
> 
> > One reason for introducing the mode parameter was to allow the interface to
> > evolve incrementally as more options / semantic questions are proposed, so
> > that we don't have to make all the decisions right now. 
> > So it would be good to start with a *minimal* definition, even just one mode.
> > The rest could follow as subsequent patches, each being reviewed and debated
> > separately. Otherwise this discussion can drag on for a long time.
> 
> Minimal definition to replace what applicaitons use on XFS and to
> support poasix_fallocate are the thre that have been mentioned so
> far (FA_ALLOCATE, FA_PREALLOCATE, FA_DEALLOCATE). I'll document them
> all in a man page...

Hi Dave,

Did you get time to write the above man page ? It will help to push
further patches in time (eg. for FA_PREALLOCATE mode).

The idea I had was to push the patch with bare minimum functionality
(FA_ALLOCATE and FA_DEALLOCATE modes) and parallely finalize on other
new mode(s) based on the man page you planned to provide.

Thanks!
--
Regards,
Amit Arora

> 
> 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/