On 6/12/14, 10:19 PM, JP Abgrall wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 6/12/14, 10:02 PM, JP Abgrall wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> You're adding a new high-level IOCTL, so let's get a bit more >>>> visibility than just linux-ext4; linux-fsdevel cc'd. >>> >>> Wasn't too sure about that one, because I didn't feel like committing >>> to other FSes for now even if they do have FITRIM. >>> Will remember to include them. >> >> You don't need to implement it for other filesystems, but whether or >> not this should be a new fs-level ioctl is something worth airing >> out on linux-fsdevel. > > FITRIM/SFITRIM > vs > FITRIM/EXT4_IOC_SFITRIM ? > > I don't mind either way. Well, no, I'm not talking about making it another ext4-only implementation - I'm talking about whether or not it's a good idea at all; see for example Dave's reply. If it's deemed a good idea, then yes, define SFITRIM, and implement it for ext4, and let others follow. If it's not a good idea then... well, perhaps don't do it at all. This gets back to the "why" - what do you want to accomplish? When would a user use this? What if they have mounted -o discard, or already issued an FITRIM? What's the ultimate goal, here? -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
