Re: fallocate vs ENOSPC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Nov 28, 2011, at 3:55 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:

> 
> You lucidly detailed issues with 1. which I suppose could be somewhat
> mitigated by not fallocating < say 1MB, though I suppose file systems
> could be smarter here and not preallocate small chunks (or when
> otherwise not appropriate). We can already get ENOSPC from a write()
> after an fallocate() in certain edge cases, so it would probably make
> sense to expand those cases.

I'm curious -- why are you so worried about ENOSPC?

You need to check the error returns on write(2) anyway (and it's good
programming practice anyways --- don't forget to check on close because
some network file systems only push to the network on close, and in
some cases they might only get quota errors on the close), so I don't see
why using fallocate() to get an early ENOSPC is so interesting for you.

-- Ted

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux