On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:42:24AM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > >>>>> "Christoph" == Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Christoph> I'm not a fan of adding another function here and would > Christoph> prefer a flag, but it looks correct, > > That was my original approach too but I didn't want to stomp over all > the existing callers. Although there only are few. > > Ted: Which would you prefer? There are *very* few users of blkdev_issue_zeroout(), and aside for a single drbd, they are all in the block layer. It would only start affecting ext4 when we plumb that flag through to sb_issue_zeroout (which your patch doesn't currently do), at which point it will affect 4 call sites in ext4, and a call site in gfs2 and hpfs2. So I'd be in favor of adding a flag to to blkdev_issue_zeroout(), and I would have a slight preference for also modifying sb_issue_zeroout so the flag gets plumbed all the way through to the fs-level callers. Cheers, - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
