[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyY+oDoK8C6C++PG=N+vtY-r1Y6fYO_3skDTzkP_SXC-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 19:06:38 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc: 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 4, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
> + /* Only punch if the device can do zeroing discard. */
> + 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?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists