[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C0F0BC787567C848B2C90989451123DA2363CDB7@ATLEXMBX4.ARRS.ARRISI.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:37:57 +0000
From: "Sidorov, Andrei" <Andrei.Sidorov@...isi.com>
To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Eric Sandeen <esandeen@...hat.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
"adilger.kernel@...ger.ca" <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"a.sangwan@...sung.com" <a.sangwan@...sung.com>,
Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ext4: introduce two new ioctls
On 24.06.2013 13:36, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> Currently, we can try implementing dave's suggesstion of introducing a
> new flag FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for falloctae instead of individual
> ioctls for both XFS and EXT4. Thanks.
Hi,
Currently PUNCH_HOLE requires KEEP_SIZE to be set as well. I think there
is no need to invent COLLAPSE_RANGE, but instead fallocate should
support PUNCH_HOLE without KEEP_SIZE. However I'm not sure that putting
block alignment restriction is a right way to go.
Regards,
Andrey.
--
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