On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 09:19:55AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > Wasn't the desire to support holes the rationale for the Aleksei > > > version of the iomap swapfile patch? > > > > Ah, so it was. FWIW I'm not sure why you'd /want/ a holey swapfile? > > >From reading the old thread, it looks like Aleksei just wanted > fallocated swap files to work: "I've traced the problem to bmap(), used > in generic_swapfile_activate call, which returns 0 for blocks inside > holes created by fallocate". Oh, that makes more sense. > Are holes in that sense are different from > actual holes in the iomap sense? Unwritten extents aren't actually holes in any sense, so they are very different and should work with the iomap swapfile code.
