Re: [RFC][Patch 1/2] Persistent preallocation in ext4

2007-01-09 Thread Amit K. Arora
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 04:34:09PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:30:44PM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote: Since the API takes the number of bytes to preallocate, at return time, shall we convert the blocks to bytes to the user? Here it returns the number of allocated

Re: [RFC][Patch 1/2] Persistent preallocation in ext4

2007-01-02 Thread Amit K. Arora
Hi Mingming, On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:30:44PM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote: looks good to me, a few comments :) Thanks for your comments! . + ret = ext4_ext_get_blocks(handle, inode, block, + max_blocks, map_bh, +

Re: [RFC][Patch 1/2] Persistent preallocation in ext4

2007-01-02 Thread Mingming Cao
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:34 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: Hi Mingming, And, Looking at other places calling ext4_*_get_blocks() in the kernel, it seems not all of them protected by i_mutex lock. I think it probably okay to not holding i_mutex during calling ext4_ext4_get_blocks(). We are

Re: [RFC][Patch 1/2] Persistent preallocation in ext4

2006-12-27 Thread Mingming Cao
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:05 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: This is the first patch in the set of two. It implements the ioctl which will be used for persistent preallocation. It is a respun of the previous patch which was posted earlier, and includes following changes: * Takes care of review

Re: [RFC][Patch 1/2] Persistent preallocation in ext4

2006-12-19 Thread Amit K. Arora
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:05:28PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: --- linux-2.6.19.prealloc.orig/fs/ext4/ioctl.c2006-12-15 16:44:35.0 +0530 +++ linux-2.6.19.prealloc/fs/ext4/ioctl.c 2006-12-15 17:47:00.0 +0530 : : + handle=ext4_journal_start(inode, +

Re: [RFC][Patch 1/2] Persistent preallocation in ext4

2006-12-19 Thread Amit K. Arora
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 02:12:06PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: Minor edits (not worth a resubmit by itself): Thanks, Andreas ! I will take care of these comments in the next submission. Regards, Amit Arora On Dec 19, 2006 16:35 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: + /*