On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:39:52PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 01:54:54PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > >>>>> "Christoph" == Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > Christoph> - FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE assures zeroes are returned, but > > Christoph> space is deallocated as much as possible - > > Christoph> FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE assures zeroes are returned, AND blocks > > Christoph> are actually allocated > > > > That works for me. I think it would be great if we could have consistent > > interfaces for fs and block. The more commonality the merrier. > > So a question I have is do we want to add a "discard-as-a-hint" analog > for fallocate? Well defined, reliable behaviour only, please. If the device can't provide the required hardware offload, then it needs to use the generic, slow implementation of the functionality or report EOPNOTSUPP. > P.S. Speaking of things that are powerful and too dangerous for > application programmers, after the Linux FAST workshop, I was having > dinner with the Ceph developers and Ric Wheeler, and we were talking > about things they really needed. Turns out they also could use an > FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE functionality. For better or for worse, Ceph is moving away from using filesystems for its back end object store, so the use of such a hack in Ceph has a very limited life. > I told them I had an > out-of-tree patch that had that functionality, and even Ric Wheeler > started getting tempted.... :-) You can tempt all you want, but it does not change the basic fact that it is dangerous and compromises system security. As such, it does not belong in upstream kernels. Especially in this day and age where ensuring the fundamental integrity of our systems is more important than ever. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
