[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160321181726.GA10892@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:17:26 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, axboe@...nel.dk,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, bfields@...ldses.org, tytso@....edu,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
david@...morbit.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
shane.seymour@....com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
jlayton@...chiereds.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: implement (some of) fallocate for block
devices
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:52:35AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > I don't really understand the comment. But I think you'd be much
>
> I don't know of a block device primitive that corresponds to the "default"
> mode of fallocate, as documented in the manpage (i.e. mode == 0). I agree
> that the whole thing could be simplified in the manner you point out below.
SCSI allows 'anchoring' blocks, which is pretty similar to a normal
fallocate, but we don't support anchoring blocks in Linux yet.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists