Re: [RFC] fallocate utility

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

 



Karel Zak wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:44:55PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:

...

>> I put a fallback in the attached tool so that if fallocate() fails, it
>> goes to posix_fallocate.  On recent (not bleeding) glibc,
> 
>  Well, this is command line wrapper around fallocate Linux syscall.
>  Right? Then I don't see a reason for the posix_fallocate based
>  fallback, particularly if:
>  
>> posix_fallocate tries to call sys_fallocate, and resorts to writing 0s
>> if that fails.  On even older glibc, it goes straight to 0-writing.  The
>> user won't know which one happened, unless they allocate a few gigabytes
>> and notice the delay.
> 
>     Karel
> 

I can live with no fallback.  It'd be -nice- to get the sys_fallocate
behavior via posix_fallocate, but something  is better than nothing, and
it does get a bit confusing with the ultimate fallback to 0-writing.

-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux