[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CE28211.6060204@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:07:29 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
CC: david@...morbit.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com, cmm@...ibm.com,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Ext4: fail if we try to use hole punch
On 11/16/2010 02:50 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:25:35PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 11/15/2010 07:05 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> Ext4 doesn't have the ability to punch holes yet, so make sure we return
> >> EOPNOTSUPP if we try to use hole punching through fallocate. This support can
> >> be added later. Thanks,
> >>
> >
> > Instead of teaching filesystems to fail if they don't support the
> > capability, why don't supporting filesystems say so, allowing the fail
> > code to be in common code?
> >
>
> There is no simple way to test if a filesystem supports hole punching or not so
> the check has to be done per fs. Thanks,
Could put a flag word in superblock_operations. Filesystems which
support punching (or other features) can enable it there.
Or even have its own callback.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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