[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq17c1k74jd.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 21:47:13 -0400
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...weicloud.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de,
tytso@....edu, djwong@...nel.org, john.g.garry@...cle.com,
bmarzins@...hat.com, chaitanyak@...dia.com,
shinichiro.kawasaki@....com, brauner@...nel.org,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
chengzhihao1@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] fallocate: introduce FALLOC_FL_WRITE_ZEROES flag
Zhang,
> Changes since RFC v4:
> - Rebase codes on 6.16-rc1.
> - Add a new queue_limit flag, and change the write_zeroes_unmap sysfs
> interface to RW mode. User can disable the unmap write zeroes
> operation by writing '0' to it when the operation is slow.
> - Modify the documentation of write_zeroes_unmap sysfs interface as
> Martin suggested.
> - Remove the statx interface.
> - Make the bdev and ext4 don't allow to submit FALLOC_FL_WRITE_ZEROES
> if the block device does not enable the unmap write zeroes operation,
> it should return -EOPNOTSUPP.
This looks OK to me as long as the fs folks agree on the fallocate()
semantics.
Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
--
Martin K. Petersen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists