Just a quick update, the submission process is now open through the
usenix hosted url below. Please note that usenix is just helping us
coordinate the site, no need to belong to usenix to attend.
http://www.usenix.org/events/lsf07/
Full details on the workshops below,
ric
2007 Linux
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 12:14:33AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 06:31:40PM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
isn't that a kernel responsbility to find/allocate target blocks?
wouldn't it better to specify desirable target group and minimal
acceptable chunk of free blocks?
The
David Chinner wrote:
The allocation interface, OTOH, is anything but simple and is really
a filesystem specific interface. Seems logical to me to separate
the two.
And ext[234] preallocation would be a very nice feature in its own right.
-Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 09:51:41AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 23:59 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 12:14:33AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 06:31:40PM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
isn't that a kernel responsbility to
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 02:01 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 09:51:41AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 23:59 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
That's the wrong way to look at it. if you want the userspace
process to specify a location, then you should
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:59:28PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
That's the wrong way to look at it. if you want the userspace
process to specify a location, then you should preallocate it first
before doing anything else. There is no need to clutter a simple
data mover interface with all sorts
On Oct 24, 2006 11:14 +0200, Andre Noll wrote:
On 14:02, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Something like the this? (only compile tested). And no, I do _not_ know,
what I'm doing ;)
Don't worry, everyone starts out not knowing what they are doing.
The ext3_free_blocks() part looks OK from a cursory
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:44 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:59:28PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
That's the wrong way to look at it. if you want the userspace
process to specify a location, then you should preallocate it first
before doing anything else. There is no
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:26:26AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 02:01 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 09:51:41AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 23:59 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
That's the wrong way to look at it. if you want
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:44:16PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:59:28PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
That's the wrong way to look at it. if you want the userspace
process to specify a location, then you should preallocate it first
before doing anything else. There is
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:19 AM, David Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:26:26AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 02:01 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 09:51:41AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
The allocation interface needs to be be able to be
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:30:02PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote:
Could we have a more abstract method for asking the filesystem where the
free blocks are and then using the same block addressing to tell the
fs where to allocate/move the file's data to?
That's fundamentally racy, so you might as
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 10:42:57PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:30:02PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote:
Could we have a more abstract method for asking the filesystem where the
free blocks are and then using the same block addressing to tell the
fs where to allocate/move
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:27:53PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
But it a race that is _easily_ handled, and applications only need to
implement one interface, not a different method for every
filesystem that requires deeep filesystem knowledge.
Besides, you still have to handle the case where
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:48:44AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:27:53PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
But it a race that is _easily_ handled, and applications only need to
implement one interface, not a different method for every
filesystem that requires deeep
15 matches
Mail list logo
