On 12/23/07, OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > However, digging further, when FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE is set, I don't > > think fat_cont_expand() has the behaviour that we want to implement. > > When that flag is set, I think we simply want to add clusters > > associated with the file to the FAT. We don't want to clear them or > > map them into the page cache yet (that should be done when the > > filesize is increased for real). > > > > I believe a call to fat_allocate_clusters() is all that is needed in > > this case. Hirofumi, please correct me if I'm wrong. > > Right. And we need to care the limitation on FAT specification > (compatibility).
I not sure I fully understand what you mean. Can you please elaborate? Are you referring to whether on not it will break other FAT implementations if a file has more clusters allocated than it needs? If so, how do we decide whether or not it is acceptable? Thanks, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (403) 399-0195 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
