On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 05:07:48PM +0900, Akira Fujita wrote: >>> Do we want the ioctl name to be specific to defrag? I thought Ted's >>> goal was to make it more generic? I can also envision this same ioctl >>> being implemented by other file systems so EXT4 seems an inappropriate >>> prefix. > > When I said generic I meant in terms of decomposing the functionality > into multiple ioctls which each could be useful for multiple purposes. > Not necessarily in terms of being used by other filesystem, because > they will almost certainly have their own requirements. > > So for example, primitives like "allocate blocks for this inode from > this region of the disk", or "don't allocate blocks for any inode in > this region of disk", can be used for multiple things (such as on-line > shrink), and not just defragmentation. > > I don't want to move this to the VFS layer, since it will involve huge > amounts of time while people argue over generic issues regarding the > interface. Look at how long it took to settle on the FIEMAP > interface; that's not an experience I care to repeat. Convinced and request withdrawn. Talking about this ioctl, can anyone say: If the OHSM team implements a similar ioctl for ext2 and ext3 and submits them for mainline at some point, do they have a chance of being accepted or are ext2 and ext3 feature frozen? Thanks Greg -- Greg Freemyer Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer First 99 Days Litigation White Paper - http://www.norcrossgroup.com/forms/whitepapers/99%20Days%20whitepaper.pdf The Norcross Group The Intersection of Evidence & Technology http://www.norcrossgroup.com -- 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
