[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090820011004.GC14005@shareable.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:10:04 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
xfs@....sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
liml@....ca, jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: batched discard support
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > So i'm torn about the 'syscall versus ioctl' issue, i'd
> > like to avoid making interface design mistakes and i'd
> > like to solicit some opinions about this. I've attached
> > the perfcounters ioctl patch below.
>
> Only add a syscall if it has _one_ clear defined purpose,
> which has kernel-wide meaning.
One clear defined purpose which comes to mind is a "trim" or "punch"
system call, for making holes in files as well as trimming block
devices. Several other OSes have that capability on files.
I don't remember - does TRIM guarantee the blocks read zeros afterwards?
It would be tidy if it does, as it could have the same meaning with files.
-- Jamie
--
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