Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760834AbZDSPj1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:39:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756565AbZDSPjS (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:39:18 -0400 Received: from qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.16]:45951 "EHLO QMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752687AbZDSPjR (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:39:17 -0400 Message-ID: <49EB45A3.4040402@comcast.net> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:39:15 -0400 From: John Richard Moser User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090409) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Allocate on Flush in vfat? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 626 Lines: 12 Would it be completely unpossible, in theory, to add allocate-on-flush to vfat? I don't see a reason why, it's just a driver semantic and not a disk data structure semantic... I'm looking at a USB stick copying gigs of data and thinking about this. I have doubts there's any real world advantage, although in the same theory you could backport AOF to ext3/2 or you couldn't. -- 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/