From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>,
david@fromorbit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, cmm@us.ibm.com,
cluster-devel@redhat.com, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:22:47 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18ACAA85-8847-4B12-9839-F99FB6C7B3E4@dilger.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101116131451.GH4757@quack.suse.cz>
On 2010-11-16, at 07:14, Jan Kara wrote:
>> Yeah I went back and forth on this. KEEP_SIZE won't change the behavior of PUNCH_HOLE since PUNCH_HOLE implicitly means keep the size. I figured since its "mode" and not "flags" it would be ok to make either way accepted, but if you prefer PUNCH_HOLE means you have to have KEEP_SIZE set then I'm cool with that, just let me know one way or the other.
>
> So we call it "mode" but speak about "flags"? Seems a bit inconsistent.
> I'd maybe lean a bit at the "flags" side and just make sure that only one of FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE is set (interpreting FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE as allocate blocks beyond i_size). But I'm not sure what others think.
IMHO, it makes more sense for consistency and "get what users expect" that these be treated as flags. Some users will want KEEP_SIZE, but in other cases it may make sense that a hole punch at the end of a file should shrink the file (i.e. the opposite of an append).
Cheers, Andreas
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
xfs@oss.sgi.com, cluster-devel@redhat.com, cmm@us.ibm.com,
Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:22:47 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18ACAA85-8847-4B12-9839-F99FB6C7B3E4@dilger.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101116131451.GH4757@quack.suse.cz>
On 2010-11-16, at 07:14, Jan Kara wrote:
>> Yeah I went back and forth on this. KEEP_SIZE won't change the behavior of PUNCH_HOLE since PUNCH_HOLE implicitly means keep the size. I figured since its "mode" and not "flags" it would be ok to make either way accepted, but if you prefer PUNCH_HOLE means you have to have KEEP_SIZE set then I'm cool with that, just let me know one way or the other.
>
> So we call it "mode" but speak about "flags"? Seems a bit inconsistent.
> I'd maybe lean a bit at the "flags" side and just make sure that only one of FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE is set (interpreting FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE as allocate blocks beyond i_size). But I'm not sure what others think.
IMHO, it makes more sense for consistency and "get what users expect" that these be treated as flags. Some users will want KEEP_SIZE, but in other cases it may make sense that a hole punch at the end of a file should shrink the file (i.e. the opposite of an append).
Cheers, Andreas
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>,
david@fromorbit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, cmm@us.ibm.com,
cluster-devel@redhat.com, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:22:53 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18ACAA85-8847-4B12-9839-F99FB6C7B3E4@dilger.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101116131451.GH4757@quack.suse.cz>
On 2010-11-16, at 07:14, Jan Kara wrote:
>> Yeah I went back and forth on this. KEEP_SIZE won't change the behavior of PUNCH_HOLE since PUNCH_HOLE implicitly means keep the size. I figured since its "mode" and not "flags" it would be ok to make either way accepted, but if you prefer PUNCH_HOLE means you have to have KEEP_SIZE set then I'm cool with that, just let me know one way or the other.
>
> So we call it "mode" but speak about "flags"? Seems a bit inconsistent.
> I'd maybe lean a bit at the "flags" side and just make sure that only one of FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE is set (interpreting FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE as allocate blocks beyond i_size). But I'm not sure what others think.
IMHO, it makes more sense for consistency and "get what users expect" that these be treated as flags. Some users will want KEEP_SIZE, but in other cases it may make sense that a hole punch at the end of a file should shrink the file (i.e. the opposite of an append).
Cheers, Andreas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-17 0:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 151+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-15 17:05 Hole Punching V2 Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:14 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:14 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 11:16 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:16 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:16 ` [Cluster-devel] " Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:16 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:43 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:43 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:43 ` [Cluster-devel] " Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:43 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 12:52 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 12:53 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 12:52 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 13:14 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 13:14 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Jan Kara
2010-11-16 13:14 ` [Cluster-devel] " Jan Kara
2010-11-16 13:14 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-17 0:22 ` Andreas Dilger [this message]
2010-11-17 0:22 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17 0:22 ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17 2:11 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-17 2:12 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Dave Chinner
2010-11-17 2:11 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-17 2:28 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17 2:29 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-17 2:28 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17 2:34 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17 2:35 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-17 2:34 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17 9:30 ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17 9:30 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17 9:30 ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17 9:19 ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17 9:19 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Andreas Dilger
2010-11-17 9:19 ` Andreas Dilger
2010-11-16 12:53 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 12:54 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 12:53 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` [PATCH 2/6] XFS: handle hole punching via fallocate properly Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:14 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` [PATCH 3/6] Ocfs2: " Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:14 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 11:50 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:50 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:50 ` [Cluster-devel] " Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:50 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-17 23:27 ` Joel Becker
2010-11-17 23:28 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Joel Becker
2010-11-17 23:27 ` [Cluster-devel] " Joel Becker
2010-11-17 23:27 ` Joel Becker
2010-11-15 17:05 ` [PATCH 4/6] Ext4: fail if we try to use hole punch Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:14 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 11:52 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:52 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:52 ` [Cluster-devel] " Jan Kara
2010-11-16 11:52 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-16 12:25 ` Avi Kivity
2010-11-16 12:25 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Avi Kivity
2010-11-16 12:25 ` Avi Kivity
2010-11-16 12:50 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 12:50 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 12:50 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 13:07 ` Avi Kivity
2010-11-16 13:07 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Avi Kivity
2010-11-16 13:07 ` Avi Kivity
2010-11-16 16:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 16:06 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 16:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 20:47 ` Greg Freemyer
2010-11-16 20:47 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Greg Freemyer
2010-11-16 20:47 ` Greg Freemyer
2010-11-16 20:47 ` Greg Freemyer
2010-11-16 20:47 ` Greg Freemyer
2010-11-17 3:06 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-17 3:06 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Ted Ts'o
2010-11-17 3:06 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-17 6:31 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17 6:32 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-17 6:31 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17 6:31 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17 6:31 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 16:20 ` Pádraig Brady
2010-11-16 16:21 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Pádraig Brady
2010-11-16 16:20 ` Pádraig Brady
2010-11-16 16:20 ` Pádraig Brady
2010-11-16 16:33 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 16:33 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 16:33 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 16:33 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-16 16:56 ` Pádraig Brady
2010-11-15 17:05 ` [PATCH 5/6] Btrfs: " Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:14 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` [PATCH 6/6] Gfs2: " Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:14 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-15 17:05 ` Josef Bacik
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-11-18 1:46 Hole Punching V3 Josef Bacik
2010-11-18 1:46 ` [PATCH 1/6] fs: add hole punching to fallocate Josef Bacik
2010-11-18 1:46 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-18 1:46 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-18 23:43 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-18 23:43 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-08 20:32 Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-08 20:32 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 1:12 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 1:12 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 2:10 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 2:10 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 3:30 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-09 3:30 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-09 4:42 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 4:42 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 4:42 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 21:41 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-09 21:41 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-09 21:53 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-09 21:53 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-09 23:40 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 23:40 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 23:40 ` Dave Chinner
2010-11-09 23:40 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-11 21:13 ` Lawrence Greenfield
2011-01-11 21:13 ` Lawrence Greenfield
2011-01-11 21:13 ` Lawrence Greenfield
2011-01-11 21:13 ` Lawrence Greenfield
2011-01-11 21:30 ` Ted Ts'o
2011-01-11 21:30 ` Ted Ts'o
2011-01-12 11:48 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 11:48 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 11:48 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 11:48 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 12:44 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-12 12:44 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-28 18:13 ` Ric Wheeler
2011-01-28 18:13 ` Ric Wheeler
2010-11-09 20:51 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-09 20:51 ` Josef Bacik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=18ACAA85-8847-4B12-9839-F99FB6C7B3E4@dilger.ca \
--to=adilger@dilger.ca \
--cc=cluster-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=cmm@us.ibm.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=josef@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.