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
