On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:39:08PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 11/28/11 2:49 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 03:29:34PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 02:51:14PM +0000, Pádraig Brady wrote: > >>> It would be better to indicate ENOSPC _before_ copying a (potentially large) > >>> file to a (potentially slow) device. If the implementation complexity > >>> and side effects of doing this are sufficiently small, then it's worth > >>> doing. These discussions are to quantify the side effects. > >> > >> In that case, why not use statfs(2) as a first class approximation? > >> You won't know for user how much fs metadata will be required, but for > >> the common case where someone trying to fit 10 pounds of horse manure > >> in a 5 pound bag, that can be caught very readily without needing to > >> use fallocate(2). > > > > Yeah, we do that too, if the fallocate call fails. > > That seems backwards to me; if fallocate fails, statfs(2) isn't going > to reveal more space, is it? (modulo metadata issues, anyway?) It might if fallocate fails with ENOSYS :-). -- 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
