RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 03:06:13PM +0200, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > > > > So what will happen when there is not enough space when "inserting a > > > > range" ? And how should user proceed from there ? > > > If insert range fails with an ENOSPC error, user could use collapse > > > range on the same range to remove the hole. > > > And after freeing more space, he can again try inserting range. > > > Ofcourse, this type of guidance should be properly documented in > > > manpage. When updating fallocate(2) manpage, I will keep in mind to > > > describe ENOSPC handling. > > > > Why collapse ? The hole is already there right ? Why not just use > > fallocate to allocate the space for the hole. And that's my point > > actually. Why not do it this way in the first place, because this is > > really counterintuitive. > > It's worse than that. It's possible that the reason why you got the > ENOSPC warning was because the operation to move the extents down > required allocating a block, and it was *that* block allocation which > failed. So it's not deterministic whether or not the file's extent > mappings were modified after a ENOSPC error, and so it's not clear > whether or not a collapse_range function will undo the range that had > been inserted --- or whether it ends up deleting existing data blocks. > > In generally, you really want system calls to have all-or-nothing > effects, where if the system call returns an error, the state of the > file has not been changed. And for that reason, I agree with Lukáš > that it is really a good idea to decouple moving the blocks down, and > allocating space --- and to make sure that if there is any failure > while inserting the range, the state of the file is not modified at all. Okay, I will remove allocating space part in insert range patch. But renaming flags as FALLOC_FL_INSERT_HOLE is needed to concent with XFS people. Because Dave prefered to call it FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE so that it looks like it is related to collapse range. Hi Dave. Do you have any objection about renaming as insert hole ? Thanks for opinions! > > Cheers, > > - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 03:06:13PM +0200, Lukáš Czerner wrote: So what will happen when there is not enough space when inserting a range ? And how should user proceed from there ? If insert range fails with an ENOSPC error, user could use collapse range on the same range to remove the hole. And after freeing more space, he can again try inserting range. Ofcourse, this type of guidance should be properly documented in manpage. When updating fallocate(2) manpage, I will keep in mind to describe ENOSPC handling. Why collapse ? The hole is already there right ? Why not just use fallocate to allocate the space for the hole. And that's my point actually. Why not do it this way in the first place, because this is really counterintuitive. It's worse than that. It's possible that the reason why you got the ENOSPC warning was because the operation to move the extents down required allocating a block, and it was *that* block allocation which failed. So it's not deterministic whether or not the file's extent mappings were modified after a ENOSPC error, and so it's not clear whether or not a collapse_range function will undo the range that had been inserted --- or whether it ends up deleting existing data blocks. In generally, you really want system calls to have all-or-nothing effects, where if the system call returns an error, the state of the file has not been changed. And for that reason, I agree with Lukáš that it is really a good idea to decouple moving the blocks down, and allocating space --- and to make sure that if there is any failure while inserting the range, the state of the file is not modified at all. Okay, I will remove allocating space part in insert range patch. But renaming flags as FALLOC_FL_INSERT_HOLE is needed to concent with XFS people. Because Dave prefered to call it FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE so that it looks like it is related to collapse range. Hi Dave. Do you have any objection about renaming as insert hole ? Thanks for opinions! Cheers, - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 03:06:13PM +0200, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > > > So what will happen when there is not enough space when "inserting a > > > range" ? And how should user proceed from there ? > > If insert range fails with an ENOSPC error, user could use collapse > > range on the same range to remove the hole. > > And after freeing more space, he can again try inserting range. > > Ofcourse, this type of guidance should be properly documented in > > manpage. When updating fallocate(2) manpage, I will keep in mind to > > describe ENOSPC handling. > > Why collapse ? The hole is already there right ? Why not just use > fallocate to allocate the space for the hole. And that's my point > actually. Why not do it this way in the first place, because this is > really counterintuitive. It's worse than that. It's possible that the reason why you got the ENOSPC warning was because the operation to move the extents down required allocating a block, and it was *that* block allocation which failed. So it's not deterministic whether or not the file's extent mappings were modified after a ENOSPC error, and so it's not clear whether or not a collapse_range function will undo the range that had been inserted --- or whether it ends up deleting existing data blocks. In generally, you really want system calls to have all-or-nothing effects, where if the system call returns an error, the state of the file has not been changed. And for that reason, I agree with Lukáš that it is really a good idea to decouple moving the blocks down, and allocating space --- and to make sure that if there is any failure while inserting the range, the state of the file is not modified at all. Cheers, - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Namjae Jeon wrote: > Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 20:52:51 +0900 > From: Namjae Jeon > To: 'Lukáš Czerner' > Cc: 'Dave Chinner' , 'Theodore Ts'o' , > 'linux-ext4' , x...@oss.sgi.com, > linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, > 'Ashish Sangwan' > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for > fallocate > > > > > > Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 16:40:29 +0900 > > > From: Namjae Jeon > > > To: 'Lukáš Czerner' > > > Cc: 'Dave Chinner' , 'Theodore Ts'o' , > > > 'linux-ext4' , x...@oss.sgi.com, > > > linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, > > > 'Ashish Sangwan' > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for > > > fallocate > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 19:23:19 +0900 > > > > > From: Namjae Jeon > > > > > To: Dave Chinner , Theodore Ts'o > > > > > Cc: linux-ext4 , x...@oss.sgi.com, > > > > > linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, > > > > > Ashish Sangwan > > > > > Subject: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for > > > > > fallocate > > > > > > > > > > In continuation of the work of making the process of non linear > > > > > editing of > > > > > media files faster, we introduce here the new flag > > > > > FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE > > > > > for fallocate. > > > > > > > > > > This flag will work opposite to the newly added > > > > > FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE flag. > > > > > As such, specifying FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE flag will insert > > > > > zeroed-out space > > > > > in between the file within the range specified by offset and len. > > > > > User can > > > > > write new data in this space. e.g. ads. > > > > > Like collapse range, currently we have the limitation that offset and > > > > > len should > > > > > be block size aligned for both XFS and Ext4. > > > > > > > > > > The semantics of the flag are : > > > > > 1) It allocates new zeroed out on disk space of len bytes starting > > > > >at offset byte without overwriting any existing data. All the data > > > > > blocks > > > > >from offset to EOF are shifted towards right to make space for > > > > > inserting > > > > >new blocks > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > this sounds a little bit weird to me. I understand the reason for > > > > this, but this is effectively two operations masking as one. We > > > > shift the existing data and then we allocate unwritten extents for > > > > the hole we've created. > > > > > > > > What would make more sense to me is to implement only the first > > > > operation - the shift. And then let the user to allocate unwritten > > > > extents for the hole using simple fallocate. > > > > > > > > The reason is that if you succeed the first part and then fail the > > > > second due to ENOSPC or any other reason the file will end up in > > > > undefined state unnecessarily. Yes in your current implementation > > > > it seems that you'll always end up with the hole in the file and the > > > > rest is properly shifted, but that may vary from file system to file > > > > system. Some might choose to roll back the shift, some might not. > > > > > > > > If FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE (or any name you wish to choose) would > > > > just simply shift the extents then you'll get rid of this and the > > > > only thing that user needs to do (if he chooses to) is to use > > > > fallocate for the hole created by the shift. If it fails, then > > > > well, he can try again without any consequences. As a bonus you get > > > > the possibility to leave the hole in the file which might be useful > > > > as well. > > > > > > > > With current behaviour this might get very confusing very quickly. > > > > > > > > What do you and others think ? > > > Hi Lukas. > > > Insert range inherently means inserting a real range of space into > > > the file to provide guaranteed space with user in the inserted area > > > so that further writes sho
RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
> > > Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 16:40:29 +0900 > > From: Namjae Jeon > > To: 'Lukáš Czerner' > > Cc: 'Dave Chinner' , 'Theodore Ts'o' , > > 'linux-ext4' , x...@oss.sgi.com, > > linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, > > 'Ashish Sangwan' > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for > > fallocate > > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 19:23:19 +0900 > > > > From: Namjae Jeon > > > > To: Dave Chinner , Theodore Ts'o > > > > Cc: linux-ext4 , x...@oss.sgi.com, > > > > linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, > > > > Ashish Sangwan > > > > Subject: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for > > > > fallocate > > > > > > > > In continuation of the work of making the process of non linear editing > > > > of > > > > media files faster, we introduce here the new flag > > > > FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE > > > > for fallocate. > > > > > > > > This flag will work opposite to the newly added > > > > FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE flag. > > > > As such, specifying FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE flag will insert zeroed-out > > > > space > > > > in between the file within the range specified by offset and len. User > > > > can > > > > write new data in this space. e.g. ads. > > > > Like collapse range, currently we have the limitation that offset and > > > > len should > > > > be block size aligned for both XFS and Ext4. > > > > > > > > The semantics of the flag are : > > > > 1) It allocates new zeroed out on disk space of len bytes starting > > > >at offset byte without overwriting any existing data. All the data > > > > blocks > > > >from offset to EOF are shifted towards right to make space for > > > > inserting > > > >new blocks > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > this sounds a little bit weird to me. I understand the reason for > > > this, but this is effectively two operations masking as one. We > > > shift the existing data and then we allocate unwritten extents for > > > the hole we've created. > > > > > > What would make more sense to me is to implement only the first > > > operation - the shift. And then let the user to allocate unwritten > > > extents for the hole using simple fallocate. > > > > > > The reason is that if you succeed the first part and then fail the > > > second due to ENOSPC or any other reason the file will end up in > > > undefined state unnecessarily. Yes in your current implementation > > > it seems that you'll always end up with the hole in the file and the > > > rest is properly shifted, but that may vary from file system to file > > > system. Some might choose to roll back the shift, some might not. > > > > > > If FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE (or any name you wish to choose) would > > > just simply shift the extents then you'll get rid of this and the > > > only thing that user needs to do (if he chooses to) is to use > > > fallocate for the hole created by the shift. If it fails, then > > > well, he can try again without any consequences. As a bonus you get > > > the possibility to leave the hole in the file which might be useful > > > as well. > > > > > > With current behaviour this might get very confusing very quickly. > > > > > > What do you and others think ? > > Hi Lukas. > > Insert range inherently means inserting a real range of space into > > the file to provide guaranteed space with user in the inserted area > > so that further writes should not fail with an -ENOSPC at least. > > If insert range cannot gurantees the above semantics, It should > > return error to user space. > > So what will happen when there is not enough space when "inserting a > range" ? And how should user proceed from there ? If insert range fails with an ENOSPC error, user could use collapse range on the same range to remove the hole. And after freeing more space, he can again try inserting range. Ofcourse, this type of guidance should be properly documented in manpage. When updating fallocate(2) manpage, I will keep in mind to describe ENOSPC handling. > > > > > If insert range has been performed on a file, It will reserve space > > that write never fail in the inserted area, > > In case of full parti
RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
On Sat, 31 May 2014, Namjae Jeon wrote: > Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 16:40:29 +0900 > From: Namjae Jeon > To: 'Lukáš Czerner' > Cc: 'Dave Chinner' , 'Theodore Ts'o' , > 'linux-ext4' , x...@oss.sgi.com, > linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, > 'Ashish Sangwan' > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for > fallocate > > > > > Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 19:23:19 +0900 > > > From: Namjae Jeon > > > To: Dave Chinner , Theodore Ts'o > > > Cc: linux-ext4 , x...@oss.sgi.com, > > > linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, > > > Ashish Sangwan > > > Subject: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for > > > fallocate > > > > > > In continuation of the work of making the process of non linear editing of > > > media files faster, we introduce here the new flag FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE > > > for fallocate. > > > > > > This flag will work opposite to the newly added FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE > > > flag. > > > As such, specifying FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE flag will insert zeroed-out > > > space > > > in between the file within the range specified by offset and len. User can > > > write new data in this space. e.g. ads. > > > Like collapse range, currently we have the limitation that offset and len > > > should > > > be block size aligned for both XFS and Ext4. > > > > > > The semantics of the flag are : > > > 1) It allocates new zeroed out on disk space of len bytes starting > > >at offset byte without overwriting any existing data. All the data > > > blocks > > >from offset to EOF are shifted towards right to make space for > > > inserting > > >new blocks > > > > Hi, > > > > this sounds a little bit weird to me. I understand the reason for > > this, but this is effectively two operations masking as one. We > > shift the existing data and then we allocate unwritten extents for > > the hole we've created. > > > > What would make more sense to me is to implement only the first > > operation - the shift. And then let the user to allocate unwritten > > extents for the hole using simple fallocate. > > > > The reason is that if you succeed the first part and then fail the > > second due to ENOSPC or any other reason the file will end up in > > undefined state unnecessarily. Yes in your current implementation > > it seems that you'll always end up with the hole in the file and the > > rest is properly shifted, but that may vary from file system to file > > system. Some might choose to roll back the shift, some might not. > > > > If FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE (or any name you wish to choose) would > > just simply shift the extents then you'll get rid of this and the > > only thing that user needs to do (if he chooses to) is to use > > fallocate for the hole created by the shift. If it fails, then > > well, he can try again without any consequences. As a bonus you get > > the possibility to leave the hole in the file which might be useful > > as well. > > > > With current behaviour this might get very confusing very quickly. > > > > What do you and others think ? > Hi Lukas. > Insert range inherently means inserting a real range of space into > the file to provide guaranteed space with user in the inserted area > so that further writes should not fail with an -ENOSPC at least. > If insert range cannot gurantees the above semantics, It should > return error to user space. So what will happen when there is not enough space when "inserting a range" ? And how should user proceed from there ? > > If insert range has been performed on a file, It will reserve space > that write never fail in the inserted area, > In case of full partition or small available size than the range > user want, It seems odd just only left inserting a hole in the middle > of file and return success to user when no one can really write to > this hole. There is a fallocate for allocation, so as I already said you can shift the extents to make a hole in the file and then use fallocate to allocate space for it and you'll get the same result. You are basically doing that now as well, but when the allocation fails the whole "insert range" ioct fails, however the extents are already shifter and there is already a holi in the file so freeing some space and running this ioctl again will not help you at all. While if you fail a fallocate, you can free some space and run it again without any problems. The res
RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
On Sat, 31 May 2014, Namjae Jeon wrote: Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 16:40:29 +0900 From: Namjae Jeon namjae.j...@samsung.com To: 'Lukáš Czerner' lczer...@redhat.com Cc: 'Dave Chinner' da...@fromorbit.com, 'Theodore Ts'o' ty...@mit.edu, 'linux-ext4' linux-e...@vger.kernel.org, x...@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 'Ashish Sangwan' a.sang...@samsung.com Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 19:23:19 +0900 From: Namjae Jeon namjae.j...@samsung.com To: Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu Cc: linux-ext4 linux-e...@vger.kernel.org, x...@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ashish Sangwan a.sang...@samsung.com Subject: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate In continuation of the work of making the process of non linear editing of media files faster, we introduce here the new flag FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate. This flag will work opposite to the newly added FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE flag. As such, specifying FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE flag will insert zeroed-out space in between the file within the range specified by offset and len. User can write new data in this space. e.g. ads. Like collapse range, currently we have the limitation that offset and len should be block size aligned for both XFS and Ext4. The semantics of the flag are : 1) It allocates new zeroed out on disk space of len bytes starting at offset byte without overwriting any existing data. All the data blocks from offset to EOF are shifted towards right to make space for inserting new blocks Hi, this sounds a little bit weird to me. I understand the reason for this, but this is effectively two operations masking as one. We shift the existing data and then we allocate unwritten extents for the hole we've created. What would make more sense to me is to implement only the first operation - the shift. And then let the user to allocate unwritten extents for the hole using simple fallocate. The reason is that if you succeed the first part and then fail the second due to ENOSPC or any other reason the file will end up in undefined state unnecessarily. Yes in your current implementation it seems that you'll always end up with the hole in the file and the rest is properly shifted, but that may vary from file system to file system. Some might choose to roll back the shift, some might not. If FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE (or any name you wish to choose) would just simply shift the extents then you'll get rid of this and the only thing that user needs to do (if he chooses to) is to use fallocate for the hole created by the shift. If it fails, then well, he can try again without any consequences. As a bonus you get the possibility to leave the hole in the file which might be useful as well. With current behaviour this might get very confusing very quickly. What do you and others think ? Hi Lukas. Insert range inherently means inserting a real range of space into the file to provide guaranteed space with user in the inserted area so that further writes should not fail with an -ENOSPC at least. If insert range cannot gurantees the above semantics, It should return error to user space. So what will happen when there is not enough space when inserting a range ? And how should user proceed from there ? If insert range has been performed on a file, It will reserve space that write never fail in the inserted area, In case of full partition or small available size than the range user want, It seems odd just only left inserting a hole in the middle of file and return success to user when no one can really write to this hole. There is a fallocate for allocation, so as I already said you can shift the extents to make a hole in the file and then use fallocate to allocate space for it and you'll get the same result. You are basically doing that now as well, but when the allocation fails the whole insert range ioct fails, however the extents are already shifter and there is already a holi in the file so freeing some space and running this ioctl again will not help you at all. While if you fail a fallocate, you can free some space and run it again without any problems. The result will be as expected. What I am arguing about is basically that your insert range ioct is masking two operations as one. Why not to make it transparent and split it into shift extents and fallocate ? Then there is a question about the name because it's no longer insert range but rather insert hole which I think is better and arguably more useful semantic. Thanks! -Lukas Thanks! Thanks! -LUkas 2) It should be used exclusively. No other fallocate flag in combination. 3
RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 16:40:29 +0900 From: Namjae Jeon namjae.j...@samsung.com To: 'Lukáš Czerner' lczer...@redhat.com Cc: 'Dave Chinner' da...@fromorbit.com, 'Theodore Ts'o' ty...@mit.edu, 'linux-ext4' linux-e...@vger.kernel.org, x...@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 'Ashish Sangwan' a.sang...@samsung.com Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 19:23:19 +0900 From: Namjae Jeon namjae.j...@samsung.com To: Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu Cc: linux-ext4 linux-e...@vger.kernel.org, x...@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ashish Sangwan a.sang...@samsung.com Subject: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate In continuation of the work of making the process of non linear editing of media files faster, we introduce here the new flag FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate. This flag will work opposite to the newly added FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE flag. As such, specifying FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE flag will insert zeroed-out space in between the file within the range specified by offset and len. User can write new data in this space. e.g. ads. Like collapse range, currently we have the limitation that offset and len should be block size aligned for both XFS and Ext4. The semantics of the flag are : 1) It allocates new zeroed out on disk space of len bytes starting at offset byte without overwriting any existing data. All the data blocks from offset to EOF are shifted towards right to make space for inserting new blocks Hi, this sounds a little bit weird to me. I understand the reason for this, but this is effectively two operations masking as one. We shift the existing data and then we allocate unwritten extents for the hole we've created. What would make more sense to me is to implement only the first operation - the shift. And then let the user to allocate unwritten extents for the hole using simple fallocate. The reason is that if you succeed the first part and then fail the second due to ENOSPC or any other reason the file will end up in undefined state unnecessarily. Yes in your current implementation it seems that you'll always end up with the hole in the file and the rest is properly shifted, but that may vary from file system to file system. Some might choose to roll back the shift, some might not. If FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE (or any name you wish to choose) would just simply shift the extents then you'll get rid of this and the only thing that user needs to do (if he chooses to) is to use fallocate for the hole created by the shift. If it fails, then well, he can try again without any consequences. As a bonus you get the possibility to leave the hole in the file which might be useful as well. With current behaviour this might get very confusing very quickly. What do you and others think ? Hi Lukas. Insert range inherently means inserting a real range of space into the file to provide guaranteed space with user in the inserted area so that further writes should not fail with an -ENOSPC at least. If insert range cannot gurantees the above semantics, It should return error to user space. So what will happen when there is not enough space when inserting a range ? And how should user proceed from there ? If insert range fails with an ENOSPC error, user could use collapse range on the same range to remove the hole. And after freeing more space, he can again try inserting range. Ofcourse, this type of guidance should be properly documented in manpage. When updating fallocate(2) manpage, I will keep in mind to describe ENOSPC handling. If insert range has been performed on a file, It will reserve space that write never fail in the inserted area, In case of full partition or small available size than the range user want, It seems odd just only left inserting a hole in the middle of file and return success to user when no one can really write to this hole. There is a fallocate for allocation, so as I already said you can shift the extents to make a hole in the file and then use fallocate to allocate space for it and you'll get the same result. You are basically doing that now as well, but when the allocation fails the whole insert range ioct fails, however the extents are already shifter and there is already a holi in the file so freeing some space and running this ioctl again will not help you at all. While if you fail a fallocate, you can free some space and run it again without any problems. The result will be as expected. What I am arguing about is basically that your insert range ioct
RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Namjae Jeon wrote: Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 20:52:51 +0900 From: Namjae Jeon namjae.j...@samsung.com To: 'Lukáš Czerner' lczer...@redhat.com Cc: 'Dave Chinner' da...@fromorbit.com, 'Theodore Ts'o' ty...@mit.edu, 'linux-ext4' linux-e...@vger.kernel.org, x...@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 'Ashish Sangwan' a.sang...@samsung.com Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 16:40:29 +0900 From: Namjae Jeon namjae.j...@samsung.com To: 'Lukáš Czerner' lczer...@redhat.com Cc: 'Dave Chinner' da...@fromorbit.com, 'Theodore Ts'o' ty...@mit.edu, 'linux-ext4' linux-e...@vger.kernel.org, x...@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 'Ashish Sangwan' a.sang...@samsung.com Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 19:23:19 +0900 From: Namjae Jeon namjae.j...@samsung.com To: Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu Cc: linux-ext4 linux-e...@vger.kernel.org, x...@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ashish Sangwan a.sang...@samsung.com Subject: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate In continuation of the work of making the process of non linear editing of media files faster, we introduce here the new flag FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate. This flag will work opposite to the newly added FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE flag. As such, specifying FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE flag will insert zeroed-out space in between the file within the range specified by offset and len. User can write new data in this space. e.g. ads. Like collapse range, currently we have the limitation that offset and len should be block size aligned for both XFS and Ext4. The semantics of the flag are : 1) It allocates new zeroed out on disk space of len bytes starting at offset byte without overwriting any existing data. All the data blocks from offset to EOF are shifted towards right to make space for inserting new blocks Hi, this sounds a little bit weird to me. I understand the reason for this, but this is effectively two operations masking as one. We shift the existing data and then we allocate unwritten extents for the hole we've created. What would make more sense to me is to implement only the first operation - the shift. And then let the user to allocate unwritten extents for the hole using simple fallocate. The reason is that if you succeed the first part and then fail the second due to ENOSPC or any other reason the file will end up in undefined state unnecessarily. Yes in your current implementation it seems that you'll always end up with the hole in the file and the rest is properly shifted, but that may vary from file system to file system. Some might choose to roll back the shift, some might not. If FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE (or any name you wish to choose) would just simply shift the extents then you'll get rid of this and the only thing that user needs to do (if he chooses to) is to use fallocate for the hole created by the shift. If it fails, then well, he can try again without any consequences. As a bonus you get the possibility to leave the hole in the file which might be useful as well. With current behaviour this might get very confusing very quickly. What do you and others think ? Hi Lukas. Insert range inherently means inserting a real range of space into the file to provide guaranteed space with user in the inserted area so that further writes should not fail with an -ENOSPC at least. If insert range cannot gurantees the above semantics, It should return error to user space. So what will happen when there is not enough space when inserting a range ? And how should user proceed from there ? If insert range fails with an ENOSPC error, user could use collapse range on the same range to remove the hole. And after freeing more space, he can again try inserting range. Ofcourse, this type of guidance should be properly documented in manpage. When updating fallocate(2) manpage, I will keep in mind to describe ENOSPC handling. Why collapse ? The hole is already there right ? Why not just use fallocate to allocate the space for the hole. And that's my point actually. Why not do it this way in the first place, because this is really counterintuitive. If insert range has been performed on a file, It will reserve space that write never fail in the inserted area, In case of full partition or small available size than the range
Re: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 03:06:13PM +0200, Lukáš Czerner wrote: So what will happen when there is not enough space when inserting a range ? And how should user proceed from there ? If insert range fails with an ENOSPC error, user could use collapse range on the same range to remove the hole. And after freeing more space, he can again try inserting range. Ofcourse, this type of guidance should be properly documented in manpage. When updating fallocate(2) manpage, I will keep in mind to describe ENOSPC handling. Why collapse ? The hole is already there right ? Why not just use fallocate to allocate the space for the hole. And that's my point actually. Why not do it this way in the first place, because this is really counterintuitive. It's worse than that. It's possible that the reason why you got the ENOSPC warning was because the operation to move the extents down required allocating a block, and it was *that* block allocation which failed. So it's not deterministic whether or not the file's extent mappings were modified after a ENOSPC error, and so it's not clear whether or not a collapse_range function will undo the range that had been inserted --- or whether it ends up deleting existing data blocks. In generally, you really want system calls to have all-or-nothing effects, where if the system call returns an error, the state of the file has not been changed. And for that reason, I agree with Lukáš that it is really a good idea to decouple moving the blocks down, and allocating space --- and to make sure that if there is any failure while inserting the range, the state of the file is not modified at all. Cheers, - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
> > Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 19:23:19 +0900 > > From: Namjae Jeon > > To: Dave Chinner , Theodore Ts'o > > Cc: linux-ext4 , x...@oss.sgi.com, > > linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, > > Ashish Sangwan > > Subject: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate > > > > In continuation of the work of making the process of non linear editing of > > media files faster, we introduce here the new flag FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE > > for fallocate. > > > > This flag will work opposite to the newly added FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE > > flag. > > As such, specifying FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE flag will insert zeroed-out space > > in between the file within the range specified by offset and len. User can > > write new data in this space. e.g. ads. > > Like collapse range, currently we have the limitation that offset and len > > should > > be block size aligned for both XFS and Ext4. > > > > The semantics of the flag are : > > 1) It allocates new zeroed out on disk space of len bytes starting > >at offset byte without overwriting any existing data. All the data blocks > >from offset to EOF are shifted towards right to make space for inserting > >new blocks > > Hi, > > this sounds a little bit weird to me. I understand the reason for > this, but this is effectively two operations masking as one. We > shift the existing data and then we allocate unwritten extents for > the hole we've created. > > What would make more sense to me is to implement only the first > operation - the shift. And then let the user to allocate unwritten > extents for the hole using simple fallocate. > > The reason is that if you succeed the first part and then fail the > second due to ENOSPC or any other reason the file will end up in > undefined state unnecessarily. Yes in your current implementation > it seems that you'll always end up with the hole in the file and the > rest is properly shifted, but that may vary from file system to file > system. Some might choose to roll back the shift, some might not. > > If FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE (or any name you wish to choose) would > just simply shift the extents then you'll get rid of this and the > only thing that user needs to do (if he chooses to) is to use > fallocate for the hole created by the shift. If it fails, then > well, he can try again without any consequences. As a bonus you get > the possibility to leave the hole in the file which might be useful > as well. > > With current behaviour this might get very confusing very quickly. > > What do you and others think ? Hi Lukas. Insert range inherently means inserting a real range of space into the file to provide guaranteed space with user in the inserted area so that further writes should not fail with an -ENOSPC at least. If insert range cannot gurantees the above semantics, It should return error to user space. If insert range has been performed on a file, It will reserve space that write never fail in the inserted area, In case of full partition or small available size than the range user want, It seems odd just only left inserting a hole in the middle of file and return success to user when no one can really write to this hole. Thanks! > > Thanks! > -LUkas > > > > 2) It should be used exclusively. No other fallocate flag in combination. > > 3) Offset and length supplied to fallocate should be fs block size aligned > >in case of xfs and ext4. > > 4) Insert range does not work for the case when offset is overlapping/beyond > >i_size. If the user wants to allocate space at the end of file they are > >advised to use either ftruncate(2) or fallocate(2) with mode 0. > > 5) It increses the size of file by len bytes. > > > > > > Namjae Jeon (10): > > fs: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate > > xfs: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate > > ext4: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate > > xfsprogs: xfs_io: add finsert command for insert range via fallocate > > xfstests: generic/027: Standard insert range tests > > xfstests: generic/028: Delayed allocation insert range > > xfstests: generic/029: Multi insert range tests > > xfstests: generic/030: Delayed allocation multi insert > > xfstests: fsstress: Add fallocate insert range operation > > xfstests: fsx: Add fallocate insert range operation > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 19:23:19 +0900 From: Namjae Jeon namjae.j...@samsung.com To: Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu Cc: linux-ext4 linux-e...@vger.kernel.org, x...@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ashish Sangwan a.sang...@samsung.com Subject: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate In continuation of the work of making the process of non linear editing of media files faster, we introduce here the new flag FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate. This flag will work opposite to the newly added FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE flag. As such, specifying FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE flag will insert zeroed-out space in between the file within the range specified by offset and len. User can write new data in this space. e.g. ads. Like collapse range, currently we have the limitation that offset and len should be block size aligned for both XFS and Ext4. The semantics of the flag are : 1) It allocates new zeroed out on disk space of len bytes starting at offset byte without overwriting any existing data. All the data blocks from offset to EOF are shifted towards right to make space for inserting new blocks Hi, this sounds a little bit weird to me. I understand the reason for this, but this is effectively two operations masking as one. We shift the existing data and then we allocate unwritten extents for the hole we've created. What would make more sense to me is to implement only the first operation - the shift. And then let the user to allocate unwritten extents for the hole using simple fallocate. The reason is that if you succeed the first part and then fail the second due to ENOSPC or any other reason the file will end up in undefined state unnecessarily. Yes in your current implementation it seems that you'll always end up with the hole in the file and the rest is properly shifted, but that may vary from file system to file system. Some might choose to roll back the shift, some might not. If FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE (or any name you wish to choose) would just simply shift the extents then you'll get rid of this and the only thing that user needs to do (if he chooses to) is to use fallocate for the hole created by the shift. If it fails, then well, he can try again without any consequences. As a bonus you get the possibility to leave the hole in the file which might be useful as well. With current behaviour this might get very confusing very quickly. What do you and others think ? Hi Lukas. Insert range inherently means inserting a real range of space into the file to provide guaranteed space with user in the inserted area so that further writes should not fail with an -ENOSPC at least. If insert range cannot gurantees the above semantics, It should return error to user space. If insert range has been performed on a file, It will reserve space that write never fail in the inserted area, In case of full partition or small available size than the range user want, It seems odd just only left inserting a hole in the middle of file and return success to user when no one can really write to this hole. Thanks! Thanks! -LUkas 2) It should be used exclusively. No other fallocate flag in combination. 3) Offset and length supplied to fallocate should be fs block size aligned in case of xfs and ext4. 4) Insert range does not work for the case when offset is overlapping/beyond i_size. If the user wants to allocate space at the end of file they are advised to use either ftruncate(2) or fallocate(2) with mode 0. 5) It increses the size of file by len bytes. Namjae Jeon (10): fs: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate xfs: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate ext4: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate xfsprogs: xfs_io: add finsert command for insert range via fallocate xfstests: generic/027: Standard insert range tests xfstests: generic/028: Delayed allocation insert range xfstests: generic/029: Multi insert range tests xfstests: generic/030: Delayed allocation multi insert xfstests: fsstress: Add fallocate insert range operation xfstests: fsx: Add fallocate insert range operation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
On Thu, 8 May 2014, Namjae Jeon wrote: > Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 19:23:19 +0900 > From: Namjae Jeon > To: Dave Chinner , Theodore Ts'o > Cc: linux-ext4 , x...@oss.sgi.com, > linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, > Ashish Sangwan > Subject: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate > > In continuation of the work of making the process of non linear editing of > media files faster, we introduce here the new flag FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE > for fallocate. > > This flag will work opposite to the newly added FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE flag. > As such, specifying FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE flag will insert zeroed-out space > in between the file within the range specified by offset and len. User can > write new data in this space. e.g. ads. > Like collapse range, currently we have the limitation that offset and len > should > be block size aligned for both XFS and Ext4. > > The semantics of the flag are : > 1) It allocates new zeroed out on disk space of len bytes starting >at offset byte without overwriting any existing data. All the data blocks >from offset to EOF are shifted towards right to make space for inserting >new blocks Hi, this sounds a little bit weird to me. I understand the reason for this, but this is effectively two operations masking as one. We shift the existing data and then we allocate unwritten extents for the hole we've created. What would make more sense to me is to implement only the first operation - the shift. And then let the user to allocate unwritten extents for the hole using simple fallocate. The reason is that if you succeed the first part and then fail the second due to ENOSPC or any other reason the file will end up in undefined state unnecessarily. Yes in your current implementation it seems that you'll always end up with the hole in the file and the rest is properly shifted, but that may vary from file system to file system. Some might choose to roll back the shift, some might not. If FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE (or any name you wish to choose) would just simply shift the extents then you'll get rid of this and the only thing that user needs to do (if he chooses to) is to use fallocate for the hole created by the shift. If it fails, then well, he can try again without any consequences. As a bonus you get the possibility to leave the hole in the file which might be useful as well. With current behaviour this might get very confusing very quickly. What do you and others think ? Thanks! -LUkas > 2) It should be used exclusively. No other fallocate flag in combination. > 3) Offset and length supplied to fallocate should be fs block size aligned >in case of xfs and ext4. > 4) Insert range does not work for the case when offset is overlapping/beyond >i_size. If the user wants to allocate space at the end of file they are >advised to use either ftruncate(2) or fallocate(2) with mode 0. > 5) It increses the size of file by len bytes. > > > Namjae Jeon (10): > fs: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate > xfs: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate > ext4: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate > xfsprogs: xfs_io: add finsert command for insert range via fallocate > xfstests: generic/027: Standard insert range tests > xfstests: generic/028: Delayed allocation insert range > xfstests: generic/029: Multi insert range tests > xfstests: generic/030: Delayed allocation multi insert > xfstests: fsstress: Add fallocate insert range operation > xfstests: fsx: Add fallocate insert range operation > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
On Thu, 8 May 2014, Namjae Jeon wrote: Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 19:23:19 +0900 From: Namjae Jeon namjae.j...@samsung.com To: Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu Cc: linux-ext4 linux-e...@vger.kernel.org, x...@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ashish Sangwan a.sang...@samsung.com Subject: [PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate In continuation of the work of making the process of non linear editing of media files faster, we introduce here the new flag FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate. This flag will work opposite to the newly added FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE flag. As such, specifying FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE flag will insert zeroed-out space in between the file within the range specified by offset and len. User can write new data in this space. e.g. ads. Like collapse range, currently we have the limitation that offset and len should be block size aligned for both XFS and Ext4. The semantics of the flag are : 1) It allocates new zeroed out on disk space of len bytes starting at offset byte without overwriting any existing data. All the data blocks from offset to EOF are shifted towards right to make space for inserting new blocks Hi, this sounds a little bit weird to me. I understand the reason for this, but this is effectively two operations masking as one. We shift the existing data and then we allocate unwritten extents for the hole we've created. What would make more sense to me is to implement only the first operation - the shift. And then let the user to allocate unwritten extents for the hole using simple fallocate. The reason is that if you succeed the first part and then fail the second due to ENOSPC or any other reason the file will end up in undefined state unnecessarily. Yes in your current implementation it seems that you'll always end up with the hole in the file and the rest is properly shifted, but that may vary from file system to file system. Some might choose to roll back the shift, some might not. If FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE (or any name you wish to choose) would just simply shift the extents then you'll get rid of this and the only thing that user needs to do (if he chooses to) is to use fallocate for the hole created by the shift. If it fails, then well, he can try again without any consequences. As a bonus you get the possibility to leave the hole in the file which might be useful as well. With current behaviour this might get very confusing very quickly. What do you and others think ? Thanks! -LUkas 2) It should be used exclusively. No other fallocate flag in combination. 3) Offset and length supplied to fallocate should be fs block size aligned in case of xfs and ext4. 4) Insert range does not work for the case when offset is overlapping/beyond i_size. If the user wants to allocate space at the end of file they are advised to use either ftruncate(2) or fallocate(2) with mode 0. 5) It increses the size of file by len bytes. Namjae Jeon (10): fs: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate xfs: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate ext4: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate xfsprogs: xfs_io: add finsert command for insert range via fallocate xfstests: generic/027: Standard insert range tests xfstests: generic/028: Delayed allocation insert range xfstests: generic/029: Multi insert range tests xfstests: generic/030: Delayed allocation multi insert xfstests: fsstress: Add fallocate insert range operation xfstests: fsx: Add fallocate insert range operation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
In continuation of the work of making the process of non linear editing of media files faster, we introduce here the new flag FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate. This flag will work opposite to the newly added FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE flag. As such, specifying FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE flag will insert zeroed-out space in between the file within the range specified by offset and len. User can write new data in this space. e.g. ads. Like collapse range, currently we have the limitation that offset and len should be block size aligned for both XFS and Ext4. The semantics of the flag are : 1) It allocates new zeroed out on disk space of len bytes starting at offset byte without overwriting any existing data. All the data blocks from offset to EOF are shifted towards right to make space for inserting new blocks 2) It should be used exclusively. No other fallocate flag in combination. 3) Offset and length supplied to fallocate should be fs block size aligned in case of xfs and ext4. 4) Insert range does not work for the case when offset is overlapping/beyond i_size. If the user wants to allocate space at the end of file they are advised to use either ftruncate(2) or fallocate(2) with mode 0. 5) It increses the size of file by len bytes. Namjae Jeon (10): fs: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate xfs: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate ext4: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate xfsprogs: xfs_io: add finsert command for insert range via fallocate xfstests: generic/027: Standard insert range tests xfstests: generic/028: Delayed allocation insert range xfstests: generic/029: Multi insert range tests xfstests: generic/030: Delayed allocation multi insert xfstests: fsstress: Add fallocate insert range operation xfstests: fsx: Add fallocate insert range operation -- 1.7.11-rc0 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH v2 0/10] fs: Introduce FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate
In continuation of the work of making the process of non linear editing of media files faster, we introduce here the new flag FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate. This flag will work opposite to the newly added FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE flag. As such, specifying FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE flag will insert zeroed-out space in between the file within the range specified by offset and len. User can write new data in this space. e.g. ads. Like collapse range, currently we have the limitation that offset and len should be block size aligned for both XFS and Ext4. The semantics of the flag are : 1) It allocates new zeroed out on disk space of len bytes starting at offset byte without overwriting any existing data. All the data blocks from offset to EOF are shifted towards right to make space for inserting new blocks 2) It should be used exclusively. No other fallocate flag in combination. 3) Offset and length supplied to fallocate should be fs block size aligned in case of xfs and ext4. 4) Insert range does not work for the case when offset is overlapping/beyond i_size. If the user wants to allocate space at the end of file they are advised to use either ftruncate(2) or fallocate(2) with mode 0. 5) It increses the size of file by len bytes. Namjae Jeon (10): fs: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate xfs: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate ext4: Add support FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE for fallocate xfsprogs: xfs_io: add finsert command for insert range via fallocate xfstests: generic/027: Standard insert range tests xfstests: generic/028: Delayed allocation insert range xfstests: generic/029: Multi insert range tests xfstests: generic/030: Delayed allocation multi insert xfstests: fsstress: Add fallocate insert range operation xfstests: fsx: Add fallocate insert range operation -- 1.7.11-rc0 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
