On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:12:03AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:06:03AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > > Sounds good. So which do we want, a new command or a new flag? Thanks, > > I'll wait for dave to chime in. I think we should absolutely expose > it as a fallocate flag, but if there's a good reason we can also expose > it as a separate command. My reasoning was that: a) it is consistent with other xfs_io allocation manipulation command structures such as resvsp/unresvsp b) "punch" is less to type than "fallocate -p" c) self documenting in scripts e.g. -c "punch 4k 4k" is much more obvious than -c "fallocate -p 4k 4k" and saves a man page lookup when reading the script. d) punch as a top level command will show up in the "xfs_io -c help", not require you to know it is a suboption of the "falloc" command to find out how to use it. e) the xfs_io command does not have to have the same name and structure as the underlying API that implements the functionality the commands execute. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
