[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq1ecvj1v50.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:59:42 -0400
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Zhang Yi
<yi.zhang@...weicloud.com>, 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,
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
Christian,
>> This looks OK to me as long as the fs folks agree on the fallocate()
>> semantics.
>
> That looks overall fine. Should I queue this up in the vfs tree?
We're expecting another revision addressing the queue limit sysfs
override. Otherwise I believe it's good to go.
--
Martin K. Petersen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists