From: Anton Altaparmakov Subject: Re: [RFC] add FIEMAP ioctl to efficiently map file allocation Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 09:30:17 +0100 Message-ID: <69B76939-CAAD-4F43-BE9F-6C3CA3ECCF5E@cam.ac.uk> References: <20070412110550.GM5967@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070416112252.GJ48531920@melbourne.sgi.com> <20070419002139.GK5967@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070419015426.GM48531920@melbourne.sgi.com> <20070430224401.GX5967@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070501042254.GD77450368@melbourne.sgi.com> <20070501223040.GL5722@schatzie.adilger.int> <03C89173-3AD1-421F-B7A0-64C999BD9DAB@cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Chinner , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Linux Filesystems , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Christoph Hellwig To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: In-Reply-To: <03C89173-3AD1-421F-B7A0-64C999BD9DAB@cam.ac.uk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On 2 May 2007, at 09:23, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > On 1 May 2007, at 23:30, Andreas Dilger wrote: > >> On May 01, 2007 14:22 +1000, David Chinner wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 04:44:01PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: >>>> Hmm, I'd thought "offline" would migrate to EXTENT_UNKNOWN, but >>>> I didn't >>> >>> I disagree - why would you want to indicate the state is unknown >>> when we know >>> very well that it is offline? >> >> If you don't like "UNKNOWN", what about "UNMAPPED"? I just want a >> catch-all flag that indicates "this extent contains data but there is >> nothing sensible to be returned for the extent mapping." > > I like UNMAPPED. I even use it in NTFS internally for extents maps > that have not been read into memory yet. (-: Oops, I use NOT_MAPPED in NTFS rather than UNMAPPED but I still like UNMAPPED, too. (-: Best regards, Anton -- Anton Altaparmakov (replace at with @) Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK Linux NTFS maintainer, http://www.linux-ntfs.org/