On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 09:04:02AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
Yuck! How the heck do you clean up the mess if that happens? I guess
you're just stuck redoing the copy with normal READ/WRITE?
Maybe we need to have the interface return a hard error in that
case and not try to give back any sort
On 04/14/2015 12:53 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 09:04:02AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
Yuck! How the heck do you clean up the mess if that happens? I guess
you're just stuck redoing the copy with normal READ/WRITE?
Maybe we need to have the interface return a hard error
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 09:53:44AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 09:04:02AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
Yuck! How the heck do you clean up the mess if that happens? I guess
you're just stuck redoing the copy with normal READ/WRITE?
Maybe we need to have the
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:22:41AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 02:19:11PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:16:13PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
On 04/14/2015 12:53 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 09:04:02AM -0400, Jeff
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:16:13PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
On 04/14/2015 12:53 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 09:04:02AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
Yuck! How the heck do you clean up the mess if that happens? I
guess you're just stuck redoing the copy with normal
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 02:19:11PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:16:13PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
On 04/14/2015 12:53 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 09:04:02AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
Yuck! How the heck do you clean up the mess if
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 02:29:06PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:22:41AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 02:19:11PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:16:13PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote:
On 04/14/2015 12:53 PM, Christoph
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:54:08AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
Is this relying on btrfs range cloning being atomic? It certainly
doesn't look atomic. It can modify items across an arbitrarily large
number of leaf blocks. It can make the changes across multiple
transactions which could
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:23:25PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:54:08AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
Is this relying on btrfs range cloning being atomic? It certainly
doesn't look atomic. It can modify items across an arbitrarily large
number of leaf blocks. It
Could we perhaps instead of a length, define a 'pos_in_start' and a
'pos_in_end' offset (with the latter being -1 for a full-file copy)
and then return an 'loff_t' value stating where the copy ended?
Well, the resulting offset will be set if the caller provided it. So
they could
On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 20:24:06 -0400
Trond Myklebust trond.mykleb...@primarydata.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Zach Brown z...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 06:36:41PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Zach Brown z...@redhat.com wrote:
Add a copy_file_range() system call for offloading copies between
regular files.
This gives an interface to underlying layers of the storage stack which
can copy without reading and writing all the data. There are a few
candidates that should support copy offloading in the nearer term:
- btrfs
Hi Zach,
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Zach Brown z...@redhat.com wrote:
Add a copy_file_range() system call for offloading copies between
regular files.
This gives an interface to underlying layers of the storage stack which
can copy without reading and writing all the data. There are a
On Apr 10, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Zach Brown z...@redhat.com wrote:
Add a copy_file_range() system call for offloading copies between
regular files.
This gives an interface to underlying layers of the storage stack which
can copy without reading and writing all the data. There are a few
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 06:36:41PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Zach Brown z...@redhat.com wrote:
+
+/*
+ * copy_file_range() differs from regular file read and write in that it
+ * specifically allows return partial success. When it does so is up to
15 matches
Mail list logo
