Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269065AbUIHJmh (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2004 05:42:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269068AbUIHJmh (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2004 05:42:37 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:65161 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269065AbUIHJmZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2004 05:42:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [Patch 2/6]: ext3 reservations: Renumber the ext3 reservations ioctls From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel , Mingming Cao , Badari Pulavarty , Ram Pai , Stephen Tweedie In-Reply-To: <20040907235327.A21397@infradead.org> References: <200409071302.i87D2ROd030909@sisko.scot.redhat.com> <20040907235327.A21397@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Message-Id: <1094636497.1985.20.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 08 Sep 2004 10:41:38 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 841 Lines: 23 Hi, On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 23:53, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Maybe you could reuse the XFS reservation ioctls instead of adding > another set? Having incompatible APIs for the same thing on different > filesystems sounds like the wrong way to go. I don't mind either way. But I just looked, and I think they are doing different things. If I'm reading the XFS bits right, the XFS ioctls actively reserve/free disk space; but the ext3 ones do nothing except set/query the size of the per-inode sliding reservation window. So sounds like they are best kept separate for now. Cheers, Stephen - 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/