Re: [RFC] fallocate utility

2009-08-14 Thread Pádraig Brady
Karel Zak wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:27:57PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote: I was thinking the new fallocate util would have the same options as the existing truncate util. I.E. -n or -o would not be needed or supportable in all situations. If you think that users would need those, then I

Re: [RFC] fallocate utility

2009-08-14 Thread Karel Zak
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:27:57PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote: I was thinking the new fallocate util would have the same options as the existing truncate util. I.E. -n or -o would not be needed or supportable in all situations. If you think that users would need those, then I suggest adding

Re: [RFC] fallocate utility

2009-07-31 Thread Pádraig Brady
Eric Sandeen wrote: Pádraig Brady wrote: Eric Sandeen wrote: TBH I think truncate --allocate sounds a little odd. (Now that I think back, I think I mentioned this before). truncate(1) and truncate(2) specifically refer to i_size, which to fs people like me, has nothing to do with the

Re: [RFC] fallocate utility

2009-07-31 Thread Eric Sandeen
Pádraig Brady wrote: Eric Sandeen wrote: Pádraig Brady wrote: Eric Sandeen wrote: TBH I think truncate --allocate sounds a little odd. (Now that I think back, I think I mentioned this before). truncate(1) and truncate(2) specifically refer to i_size, which to fs people like me, has

Re: [RFC] fallocate utility

2009-07-31 Thread Pádraig Brady
Tilman Schmidt wrote: Pádraig Brady schrieb: I don't see a problem in extending the meaning of the truncate command. Now truncate isn't the best name for the command but that name already existed in BSD and so I thought it best to align with that. So what about also having an fallocate

Re: [RFC] fallocate utility

2009-07-31 Thread Giuseppe Scrivano
Hello, Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com writes: Tilman Schmidt wrote: Pádraig Brady schrieb: I don't see a problem in extending the meaning of the truncate command. Now truncate isn't the best name for the command but that name already existed in BSD and so I thought it best to align with

Re: [RFC] fallocate utility

2009-07-31 Thread Eric Sandeen
Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: Hello, Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com writes: Tilman Schmidt wrote: ... Why not make it, in the best Unix tradition, a single executable whose action depends on the name it is run as? Hmm. Good idea. There is precedent for that already in coreutils. What

Re: [RFC] fallocate utility

2009-07-31 Thread Tilman Schmidt
Pádraig Brady schrieb: I don't see a problem in extending the meaning of the truncate command. Now truncate isn't the best name for the command but that name already existed in BSD and so I thought it best to align with that. So what about also having an fallocate command in coreutils? Well

Re: [RFC] fallocate utility

2009-07-31 Thread Bob Proulx
Tilman Schmidt wrote: Why not make it, in the best Unix tradition, a single executable whose action depends on the name it is run as? That can cause problems in various cases. So much so that it was written into the GNU Coding Standards to be avoided:

Re: [RFC] fallocate utility

2009-07-31 Thread Pádraig Brady
Eric Sandeen wrote: Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: Hello, Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com writes: Tilman Schmidt wrote: ... Why not make it, in the best Unix tradition, a single executable whose action depends on the name it is run as? Hmm. Good idea. There is precedent for that already