On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:27:37AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 04:17:49PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Hm. Peng's patches only generalize the CLONE and CLONE_RANGE ioctls from
> > btrfs, however they don't port over the (vastly different) EXTENT_SAME ioctl.
> >
> > What does everyone think about generalizing EXTENT_SAME? The interface enables
> > one to ask the kernel to dedupe multiple file ranges in a single call. That's
> > more complex than what I was proposing with COPY_FR_DEDUP(E), but I'm assuming
> > that the extra complexity buys us the ability to ... multi-dedupe at the same
> > time, with locks held on the source file?
> >
> > I'm happy to generalize the existing EXTENT_SAME, but please yell if you really
> > hate the interface.
>
> It's not pretty, but if the btrfs folks have a good reason for it I
> don't see a reason to diverge.
I started hoisting EXTENT_SAME into the VFS but I don't like the name because
this ioctl implies some sort of action, but "EXTENT SAME" lacks a verb. Since
we have to introduce a new symbol anyway, I'm going to use FS_DEDUPE_RANGE.
struct file_dedupe_range {
...
}
#define FI_DEDUPE_RANGE _IOWR(0x94, 54, struct file_dedupe_range)
(Honestly, I'm not in love with FICLONERANGE either, but FIDEDUPRANGE was just
unpronounceable mess.)
Also, for the btrfs folks: Why does extent_same call mnt_want_write_file on the
fd that we pass into the ioctl? Shouldn't we be calling it on the fd that's in
the btrfs_ioctl_extent_same_info structure because that'ss the file that gets
its blocks remapped?
--D
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
