From: Thomas Glanzmann Subject: Re: zero out blocks of freed user data for operation a virtual machine environment Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 14:34:30 +0200 Message-ID: <20090525123430.GA5534@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <20090524170045.GC24753@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20090524101551.57b706e9@infradead.org> <20090524173933.GD24753@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20090525120320.GA25908@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Theodore Tso , Arjan van de Ven , tytso@thunk.org, LKML , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from faui03.informatik.uni-erlangen.de ([131.188.30.103]:58473 "EHLO faui03.informatik.uni-erlangen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750761AbZEYMe3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2009 08:34:29 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090525120320.GA25908@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello Ted, > Yes, it does, sb_issue_discard(). So if you wanted to hook into this > routine with a function which issued calls to zero out blocks, it > would be easy to create a private patch. that sounds good because it wouldn't only target the most used filesystem but every other filesystem that uses the interface as well. Do you think that a tunable or configurable patch has a chance to hit upstream as well? Thomas