Eric Sandeen wrote: > Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:17:35AM -0400, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >>> >From 3d7a0ca0ee8a755251251bd9ddca0866c25acdc2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:12:08 -0400 >>> Subject: [PATCH] ext3: sreadahead hooks >>> >>> The sreadahead program, used to make the OS boot faster, needs to know in >>> the approximate order in files are used during the boot process. This patch >>> adds the ext3 hook for this functionality, basically it stores "jiffies" >>> into the inode at allocation time, and exposes it via an EXT3 ioctl (yes I >>> know but ioctl seems fitting for this). >> Even if it's an ioctl there's absolutely no point in making this >> fileystem specific. Also the name is rather dumb and non-descriptive. > > I have to agree, both the ioctl name and the new field are not very > descriptive - created_when sounds an awful lot like ctime but it's not. > > and INODE_JIFFIES really doesn't mean anything at all w/o extra context. > But I'm trying to think of some nice names. :) > > What about making a new struct inode field and doing this update in > new_inode(), and making it a generic ioctl. Are we ready to go that far? Or, as I thought about/mentioned to hch, and I guess he and Arjan already discussed... :) why not just use tracing infrastructure to get this info, rather than adding new members to every inode on the system? -Eric -- 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
