Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ext3 reservation allow turn off for specifed file
From: Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org>
To: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, sct@redhat.com, pbadari@us.ibm.com,
       Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <1098147705.8803.1084.camel@w-ming2.beaverton.ibm.com>
References: <1097846833.1968.88.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com>
	 <1097856114.4591.28.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1097858401.1968.148.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com>
	 <1097872144.4591.54.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1097878826.1968.162.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com>
	 <109787  <1098147705.8803.1084.camel@w-ming2.beaverton.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: http://madrabbit.org/
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:55:41 -0700
Message-Id: <1098294941.18850.4.camel@orca.madrabbit.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 891
Lines: 22

On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 18:01 -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 16:42, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Applications currently pass a seeky-access hint into the kernel via
> > posix_fadvise(POSIX_FADV_RANDOM).  It would be nice to hook into that

[...]

> Just thought seeky random write application could use the existing ioctl
> to let the kernel know it does not need reservation at all. Isn't that
> more straightforward?

Going the ioctl route seems to imply that userspace would have to do a
posix_fadvise() call and the ioctl, as opposed to just the fadvise. No?
I'm betting the fadvise call is a little more portable as well.

Ray

-
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/