On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:06:16 -0400
Laurent Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Le 29 juin 07 à 18:09, Jose R. Santos a écrit :
> Hi Jose,
Hi Laurent,
Seems like your emails are not making it to the mailing list. I got
them fine though.
> Tha
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:51:25 -0400
Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think there is actually any fundamental difference between these
> proposals. The reality is that we cannot change the semantics of the
> META_BG flag at this point, since both e2fsprogs and ext3/ext4 in the
> k
On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 01:14 -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2007 18:26 -0400, Mike Waychison wrote:
> > Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > >I don't think ext2 is safe for > 8TB filesystems anyways, so this
> > >isn't a huge loss.
> >
> > This is reference to the idea of overloading the high-bit
On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 01:51 -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2007 17:09 -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote:
> > I think the BIG_BG feature is better suited to the design philosophy of
> > ext2/3. Since all the important meta-data is easily accessible thanks
> > to the static filesystem layout,
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 13:01 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Guys, Mike and Sreenivasa at google are looking into implementing
> fallocate() on ext2. Of course, any such implementation could and should
> also be portable to ext3 and ext4 bitmapped files.
>
> I believe that Sreenivasa will mainly be
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:36:57PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > This
> > would seem to be the only impediment from using fallocated files
> > for swap files. Maybe if FIEMAP was used by mkswap to get an
> > "UNWRITTEN" flag back instead of "HOLE" it wouldn't be a problem.
>
> Probably. If we t
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:02:47PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > Can you clarify - what is the current behaviour when ENOSPC (or some other
> > error) is hit? Does it keep the current fallocate() or does it free it?
>
> Currently it is left on the file system implementation. In ext4, we do
> no
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 03:14:58AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> I suppose it might be a bit late in the game to add a "goal"
> parameter and e.g. FA_FL_REQUIRE_GOAL, FA_FL_NEAR_GOAL, etc to make
> the API more suitable for XFS? The goal could be a single __u64, or
> a struct with e.g. __u64 byte
