From: Ted Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: Do not dispatch FITRIM through separate super_operation Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:41:19 -0500 Message-ID: <20101119154119.GF10039@thunk.org> References: <1290065809-3976-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, sandeen@redhat.com To: Lukas Czerner Return-path: Received: from THUNK.ORG ([69.25.196.29]:56221 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754066Ab0KSPlV (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:41:21 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1290065809-3976-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 08:36:48AM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote: > There was concern that FITRIM ioctl is not common enough to be included > in core vfs ioctl, as Christoph Hellwig pointed out there's no real point > in dispatching this out to a separate vector instead of just through > ->ioctl. > > So this commit removes ioctl_fstrim() from vfs ioctl and trim_fs > from super_operation structure. > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner Trying to redirect this thread back to the original patches.... What do people think? Should I try to push these two patches to Linus now, to make it easier for other file systems who might be interested in implementing FITRIM functionality? Or should I wait until the 2.6.37-rc1 window? We're at -rc3, so a change like this is a bit late, but so far no one else is using trim_fs besides ext4, and it will make life easier for other file systems, so I'm willing to try pushing this to Linus if there is consensus from other fs developers. - Ted