On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 01:22:48PM +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >On May 02, 2007 18:23 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:25:59PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:47:02AM +1000, David
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 01:22:48PM +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
On May 02, 2007 18:23 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:25:59PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:47:02AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On May 02, 2007 18:23 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:25:59PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:47:02AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
>> >
>> > > For FA_ALLOCATE, it's supposed to change the file size
On May 02, 2007 18:23 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:25:59PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:47:02AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> >
> > > For FA_ALLOCATE, it's supposed to change the file size if we
> > > allocate past EOF, right?
> >
> > I
On May 02, 2007 18:23 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:25:59PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:47:02AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
For FA_ALLOCATE, it's supposed to change the file size if we
allocate past EOF, right?
I would argue
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
On May 02, 2007 18:23 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:25:59PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:47:02AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
For FA_ALLOCATE, it's supposed to change the file size if we
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:25:59PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:47:02AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
>
> > For FA_ALLOCATE, it's supposed to change the file size if we
> > allocate past EOF, right?
>
> I would argue no. Use truncate for that.
The patch I posted for
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:25:59PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:47:02AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
For FA_ALLOCATE, it's supposed to change the file size if we
allocate past EOF, right?
I would argue no. Use truncate for that.
The patch I posted for ext4
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 03:56:32PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:25:59PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> IIRC, the argument for FA_ALLOCATE changing file size is that
> posix_fallocate() is supposed to change the file size.
But it's not posix_fallocate; it's something
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 03:56:32PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:25:59PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
IIRC, the argument for FA_ALLOCATE changing file size is that
posix_fallocate() is supposed to change the file size.
But it's not posix_fallocate; it's something more
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:25:59PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:47:02AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
>
> > For FA_ALLOCATE, it's supposed to change the file size if we
> > allocate past EOF, right?
>
> I would argue no. Use truncate for that.
I'm going from the ext4
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:47:02AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> For FA_ALLOCATE, it's supposed to change the file size if we
> allocate past EOF, right?
I would argue no. Use truncate for that.
> For FA_DEALLOCATE, does it change the filesize at all?
Same as above.
> Or does
> it just punch
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 11:20:56PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> Based on the discussion, this new patchset uses following as the
> interface for fallocate() system call:
>
> asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
Ok, so now for the hard questions - what are
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 11:20:56PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
Based on the discussion, this new patchset uses following as the
interface for fallocate() system call:
asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
Ok, so now for the hard questions - what are the
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:47:02AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
For FA_ALLOCATE, it's supposed to change the file size if we
allocate past EOF, right?
I would argue no. Use truncate for that.
For FA_DEALLOCATE, does it change the filesize at all?
Same as above.
Or does
it just punch a
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:25:59PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:47:02AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
For FA_ALLOCATE, it's supposed to change the file size if we
allocate past EOF, right?
I would argue no. Use truncate for that.
I'm going from the ext4
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:46:13PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> If one insists to have fd at first argument, what is wrong with
> having u32 arguments only?
Well, I was one of those who objected as it seems *UGLY* to me.
> It's not that this syscall comes even close to what can be
>
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 04:43:28PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Fri, 27 April 2007 14:10:03 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >
> > After long discussions where at least two possible implementations
> > were suggested that would work on _all_ architectures you chose one
> > which doesn't and causes
On Fri, 27 April 2007 14:10:03 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>
> After long discussions where at least two possible implementations
> were suggested that would work on _all_ architectures you chose one
> which doesn't and causes extra effort.
I believe the long discussion also showed that every
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 11:20:56PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> Based on the discussion, this new patchset uses following as the
> interface for fallocate() system call:
>
> asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
>
> It seems that only s390 architecture has
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 11:20:56PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
Based on the discussion, this new patchset uses following as the
interface for fallocate() system call:
asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
It seems that only s390 architecture has a
On Fri, 27 April 2007 14:10:03 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
After long discussions where at least two possible implementations
were suggested that would work on _all_ architectures you chose one
which doesn't and causes extra effort.
I believe the long discussion also showed that every
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 04:43:28PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Fri, 27 April 2007 14:10:03 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
After long discussions where at least two possible implementations
were suggested that would work on _all_ architectures you chose one
which doesn't and causes extra
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:46:13PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
If one insists to have fd at first argument, what is wrong with
having u32 arguments only?
Well, I was one of those who objected as it seems *UGLY* to me.
It's not that this syscall comes even close to what can be
considered
Based on the discussion, this new patchset uses following as the
interface for fallocate() system call:
asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
It seems that only s390 architecture has a problem with such a layout of
arguments in fallocate(). Thus for s390, we
Based on the discussion, this new patchset uses following as the
interface for fallocate() system call:
asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
It seems that only s390 architecture has a problem with such a layout of
arguments in fallocate(). Thus for s390, we
26 matches
Mail list logo
