Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751250Ab3FXN4T (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:56:19 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:50893 "EHLO mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750829Ab3FXN4R (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:56:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:14:39 +0800 From: Zheng Liu To: "Sidorov, Andrei" Cc: Namjae Jeon , Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , Eric Sandeen , Andreas Dilger , "tytso@mit.edu" , "adilger.kernel@dilger.ca" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "a.sangwan@samsung.com" , Namjae Jeon Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ext4: introduce two new ioctls Message-ID: <20130624141439.GA8275@gmail.com> Mail-Followup-To: "Sidorov, Andrei" , Namjae Jeon , Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , Eric Sandeen , Andreas Dilger , "tytso@mit.edu" , "adilger.kernel@dilger.ca" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "a.sangwan@samsung.com" , Namjae Jeon References: <1371967642-3116-1-git-send-email-linkinjeon@gmail.com> <03D226D6-9598-473F-90FC-03A389E2A625@dilger.ca> <7D1878F6-0387-48F3-8724-4A8946AECF9E@redhat.com> <20130624024459.GJ29376@dastard> <20130624070656.GA20166@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 939 Lines: 22 On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:37:57AM +0000, Sidorov, Andrei wrote: > On 24.06.2013 13:36, Namjae Jeon wrote: > > Currently, we can try implementing dave's suggesstion of introducing a > > new flag FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for falloctae instead of individual > > ioctls for both XFS and EXT4. Thanks. > > Hi, > > Currently PUNCH_HOLE requires KEEP_SIZE to be set as well. I think there > is no need to invent COLLAPSE_RANGE, but instead fallocate should > support PUNCH_HOLE without KEEP_SIZE. However I'm not sure that putting > block alignment restriction is a right way to go. PUNCH_HOLE without KEEP_SIZE makes sense to me. Regards, - Zheng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/