From: Zheng Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ext4: introduce two new ioctls Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:14:39 +0800 Message-ID: <20130624141439.GA8275@gmail.com> References: <1371967642-3116-1-git-send-email-linkinjeon@gmail.com> <03D226D6-9598-473F-90FC-03A389E2A625@dilger.ca> <7D1878F6-0387-48F3-8724-4A8946AECF9E@redhat.com> <20130624024459.GJ29376@dastard> <20130624070656.GA20166@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Namjae Jeon , Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , Eric Sandeen , Andreas Dilger , "tytso@mit.edu" , "adilger.kernel@dilger.ca" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "a.sangwan@samsung.com" , Namjae Jeon To: "Sidorov, Andrei" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:37:57AM +0000, Sidorov, Andrei wrote: > On 24.06.2013 13:36, Namjae Jeon wrote: > > Currently, we can try implementing dave's suggesstion of introducing a > > new flag FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for falloctae instead of individual > > ioctls for both XFS and EXT4. Thanks. > > Hi, > > Currently PUNCH_HOLE requires KEEP_SIZE to be set as well. I think there > is no need to invent COLLAPSE_RANGE, but instead fallocate should > support PUNCH_HOLE without KEEP_SIZE. However I'm not sure that putting > block alignment restriction is a right way to go. PUNCH_HOLE without KEEP_SIZE makes sense to me. Regards, - Zheng