Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932840AbXEGLKk (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2007 07:10:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932929AbXEGLKj (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2007 07:10:39 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:40250 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932840AbXEGLKi (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2007 07:10:38 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 16:40:38 +0530 From: "Amit K. Arora" To: Andrew Morton Cc: David Chinner , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, suparna@in.ibm.com, cmm@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc Message-ID: <20070507111038.GB7012@amitarora.in.ibm.com> References: <20070417125514.GA7574@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070418130600.GW5967@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070420135146.GA21352@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070420145918.GY355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20070424121632.GA10136@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070426175056.GA25321@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070426180332.GA7209@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070503212955.b1b6443c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070504060731.GJ32602149@melbourne.sgi.com> <20070503232815.2f62a75e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070503232815.2f62a75e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1225 Lines: 28 On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 11:28:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > The above opengroup page only permits S_ISREG. Preallocating directories > sounds quite useful to me, although it's something which would be pretty > hard to emulate if the FS doesn't support it. And there's a decent case to > be made for emulating it - run-anywhere reasons. Does glibc emulation support > directories? Quite unlikely. > > But yes, sounds like a desirable thing. Would XFS support it easily if the above > check was relaxed? I think we may relax the check here and let the individual file system decide if they support preallocation for directories or not. What do you think ? One thing to be thought in this case is the error code which should be returned by the file system implementation, incase it doesn't support preallocation for directories. Should it be -ENODEV (to match with what posix says) , or something else (which might make more sense in this case) ? -- Regards, Amit Arora - 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/