> On Oct 23, 2006 18:03 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > I would in fact go so far as to allow only a single extent to be specified > > > per call. This is to avoid the passing of any pointers as part of the > > > interface (hello ioctl police :-), and also makes the kernel code simpler. > > > I don't think the syscall/ioctl overhead is significant compared to the > > > journal and IO overhead. > > > > ...it makes it kind of > > harder to tell where indirect blocks would go - and it would be > > impossible for the defragmenter to force some unusual placement of > > indirect blocks... > > It would be possible to specify indirect block relocation in same manner > as regular block relocation I think. Allocate a new block, copy contents, > flush block from cache, fix up reference (inode, dindirect), commit. Yes, but there's a question of the interface to this operation. How to specify which indirect block I mean? Obviously we could introduce separate call for remapping indirect blocks but I find this solution kind of clumsy... Bye Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SuSE CR Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
