[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fa686aa40712231223j18b83ff6ne5ade95a88ebbc79@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:23:22 -0700
From: "Grant Likely" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: "OGAWA Hirofumi" <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Cc: "Steven Cavanagh" <steven.cavanagh@...retlab.ca>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fat: Editions to support fat_fallocate()
On 12/23/07, OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp> wrote:
> "Grant Likely" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> writes:
> >
> > However, digging further, when FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE is set, I don't
> > think fat_cont_expand() has the behaviour that we want to implement.
> > When that flag is set, I think we simply want to add clusters
> > associated with the file to the FAT. We don't want to clear them or
> > map them into the page cache yet (that should be done when the
> > filesize is increased for real).
> >
> > I believe a call to fat_allocate_clusters() is all that is needed in
> > this case. Hirofumi, please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Right. And we need to care the limitation on FAT specification (compatibility).
I not sure I fully understand what you mean. Can you please
elaborate? Are you referring to whether on not it will break other
FAT implementations if a file has more clusters allocated than it
needs? If so, how do we decide whether or not it is acceptable?
Thanks,
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely@...retlab.ca
(403) 399-0195
--
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