On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 04:33:01PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 08:39:50AM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > All I'm really interested in right now is that the fallocate > > _interface_ can be used as a *complete replacement* for the > > pre-existing XFS-specific ioctls that are already used by > > applications. What ext4 can or can't do right now is irrelevant to > > this discussion - the interface definition needs to take priority > > over implementation.... > > Would you like to write up an interface definition description (likely > man page) and post it for review, possibly with a mention of apps using > it today ? Yeah, I started doing that yesterday as i figured it was the only way to cut the discussion short.... > One reason for introducing the mode parameter was to allow the interface to > evolve incrementally as more options / semantic questions are proposed, so > that we don't have to make all the decisions right now. > So it would be good to start with a *minimal* definition, even just one mode. > The rest could follow as subsequent patches, each being reviewed and debated > separately. Otherwise this discussion can drag on for a long time. Minimal definition to replace what applicaitons use on XFS and to support poasix_fallocate are the thre that have been mentioned so far (FA_ALLOCATE, FA_PREALLOCATE, FA_DEALLOCATE). I'll document them all in a man page... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
