[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160305205728.GA4834@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 12:57:28 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
shane.seymour@....com, Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: implement (some of) fallocate for block
devices
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 07:06:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > + if ((mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) &&
> > + (!blk_queue_discard(q) || !q->limits.discard_zeroes_data))
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> I'm ok with this, but suspect that some users would prefer to just
> turn this into ZERO_RANGE silently.
>
> Comments from people who would be expected to use this?
A hole punch should be a hole punch, and not silently allocate blocks
isntead of deallocating them. It's not even a fallback, it's pretty
much the opposite for some workloads.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists