On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:32:56PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 3) This functionality shouldn't be in the block device layer; if you
> want something like this, add it to fs/ext4 instead, and other file
> systems can optimize sb_issue_zeroout() themselves if they want.
>
> And if the answer is (1) or (2), do people mind if I carry this patch
> in the ext4 tree, so I can use and test this right away, without
> having to worry about merging with the block tree?
(4): add a new flag to blkdev_issue_zeroout to say if deallocating the
blocks is okay, and if yes proceed like (1).
Requiring blocks to be zeroed, but not wanting to remove the
provisioning seems like a perfectly valid request, especially from
userspace (e.g. databases)
--
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
