On Jul 12, 2007 13:56 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> As you suggest, let us just have two modes for the time being:
>
> #define FALLOC_ALLOCATE 0x1
> #define FALLOC_ALLOCATE_KEEP_SIZE 0x2
>
> As the name suggests, when FALLOC_ALLOCATE_KEEP_SIZE mode is passed it
> will
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:13:34PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 12:58:13PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> >
> > Why don't we just merge the interface for preallocation (essentially
> > enough to satisfy posix_fallocate() and the simple XFS requirement for
> > space
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 12:58:13PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
>
> Why don't we just merge the interface for preallocation (essentially
> enough to satisfy posix_fallocate() and the simple XFS requirement for
> space reservation without changing file size), which there is clear agreement
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 12:58:13PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:03:12AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 05:16:50PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > > Well, if you see the modes proposed using above flags :
> > >
> > > #define
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:03:12AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 05:16:50PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > Well, if you see the modes proposed using above flags :
> >
> > #define FA_ALLOCATE 0
> > #define FA_DEALLOCATE FA_FL_DEALLOC
> > #define FA_RESV_SPACE
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:03:12AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 05:16:50PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
Well, if you see the modes proposed using above flags :
#define FA_ALLOCATE 0
#define FA_DEALLOCATE FA_FL_DEALLOC
#define FA_RESV_SPACE
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 12:58:13PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:03:12AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 05:16:50PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
Well, if you see the modes proposed using above flags :
#define FA_ALLOCATE 0
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 12:58:13PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
Why don't we just merge the interface for preallocation (essentially
enough to satisfy posix_fallocate() and the simple XFS requirement for
space reservation without changing file size), which there is clear agreement
on
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:13:34PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 12:58:13PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
Why don't we just merge the interface for preallocation (essentially
enough to satisfy posix_fallocate() and the simple XFS requirement for
space
On Jul 12, 2007 13:56 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
As you suggest, let us just have two modes for the time being:
#define FALLOC_ALLOCATE 0x1
#define FALLOC_ALLOCATE_KEEP_SIZE 0x2
As the name suggests, when FALLOC_ALLOCATE_KEEP_SIZE mode is passed it
will result
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 08:55:43AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> Given the current behaviour for posix_fallocate() in glibc, I think
> that retaining the same error semantic and punting the cleanup to
> userspace (where the app will fail with ENOSPC anyway) is the only
> sane thing we can do here.
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 03:37:01PM +1000, Timothy Shimmin wrote:
> We use this capability in XFS at the moment.
> I think this is mainly for DMF (HSM) but is done via the xfs handle
> interface
> (xfs_open_by_handle) AFAICT.
>
You're not :) You're using an O_INVIBLE equivalent (as described
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 05:16:50PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> Well, if you see the modes proposed using above flags :
>
> #define FA_ALLOCATE 0
> #define FA_DEALLOCATE FA_FL_DEALLOC
> #define FA_RESV_SPACE FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE
> #define FA_UNRESV_SPACE (FA_FL_DEALLOC | FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE |
>
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 05:16:50PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
Well, if you see the modes proposed using above flags :
#define FA_ALLOCATE 0
#define FA_DEALLOCATE FA_FL_DEALLOC
#define FA_RESV_SPACE FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE
#define FA_UNRESV_SPACE (FA_FL_DEALLOC | FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE |
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 03:37:01PM +1000, Timothy Shimmin wrote:
We use this capability in XFS at the moment.
I think this is mainly for DMF (HSM) but is done via the xfs handle
interface
(xfs_open_by_handle) AFAICT.
You're not :) You're using an O_INVIBLE equivalent (as described below),
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 08:55:43AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
Given the current behaviour for posix_fallocate() in glibc, I think
that retaining the same error semantic and punting the cleanup to
userspace (where the app will fail with ENOSPC anyway) is the only
sane thing we can do here.
Amit K. Arora wrote:
FA_FL_NO_MTIME 0x10 /* keep same mtime (default change on size, data change) */
FA_FL_NO_CTIME 0x20 /* keep same ctime (default change on size, data change) */
NACK to these aswell. If i_size changes c/mtime need updates, if the size
doesn't chamge they don't. No need
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:31:07AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:38:48PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > > FA_FL_DEALLOC 0x01 /* deallocate unwritten extent (default
> > > allocate) */
> > > FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE 0x02 /* keep size for EOF {pre,de}alloc
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:38:48PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > FA_FL_DEALLOC 0x01 /* deallocate unwritten extent (default
> > allocate) */
> > FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE 0x02 /* keep size for EOF {pre,de}alloc (default change
> > size) */
> > FA_FL_DEL_DATA 0x04 /* delete
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:52:46PM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> The @mode flags that are currently under consideration are (AFAIK):
>
> FA_FL_DEALLOC 0x01 /* deallocate unwritten extent (default allocate)
> */
> FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE 0x02 /* keep size for EOF {pre,de}alloc (default
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:52:46PM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
The @mode flags that are currently under consideration are (AFAIK):
FA_FL_DEALLOC 0x01 /* deallocate unwritten extent (default allocate)
*/
FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE 0x02 /* keep size for EOF {pre,de}alloc (default change
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:38:48PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
FA_FL_DEALLOC 0x01 /* deallocate unwritten extent (default
allocate) */
FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE 0x02 /* keep size for EOF {pre,de}alloc (default change
size) */
FA_FL_DEL_DATA 0x04 /* delete existing data in
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:31:07AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 03:38:48PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
FA_FL_DEALLOC 0x01 /* deallocate unwritten extent (default
allocate) */
FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE 0x02 /* keep size for EOF {pre,de}alloc (default change
Amit K. Arora wrote:
FA_FL_NO_MTIME 0x10 /* keep same mtime (default change on size, data change) */
FA_FL_NO_CTIME 0x20 /* keep same ctime (default change on size, data change) */
NACK to these aswell. If i_size changes c/mtime need updates, if the size
doesn't chamge they don't. No need
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 08:55:43AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:21:11AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 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
> > > >
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 08:55:43AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:21:11AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
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?
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:21:11AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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?
> >
>
On Jun 30, 2007 11:21 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:02:47PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > Currently it is left on the file system implementation. In ext4, we do
> > not undo preallocation if some error (say, ENOSPC) is hit. Hence it may
> > end up with partial
On Jun 30, 2007 11:21 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:02:47PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
Currently it is left on the file system implementation. In ext4, we do
not undo preallocation if some error (say, ENOSPC) is hit. Hence it may
end up with partial
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:21:11AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
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?
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
>
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
not undo
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:49:13PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:18:04AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 23:49 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
>
> > Correct, but for swap files that's not an issue - no user should be
> able
> > too read them, and FA_MKSWAP would really need root privileges to
> execute.
>
> Will the FA_MKSWAP mode still be required with your suggested change
> of
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:18:04AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > > Can you clarify - what is the
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:18:04AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Can you clarify - what is the current
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 23:49 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
Correct, but for swap files that's not an issue - no user should be
able
too read them, and FA_MKSWAP would really need root privileges to
execute.
Will the FA_MKSWAP mode still be required with your suggested change
of
teaching
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:49:13PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:18:04AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600,
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:42:50AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007 16:15 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:52:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > In XFS one of the (many) ALLOC modes is to zero existing data on allocate.
> > > For ext4 all this would
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:52:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2007 19:15 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > +#define FA_FL_DEALLOC 0x01 /* default is allocate */
> > +#define FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE0x02 /* default is extend/shrink size */
> > +#define FA_FL_DEL_DATA 0x04 /*
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > Can you clarify - what is the current behaviour when ENOSPC (or some other
> > > error) is hit? Does it
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2007 20:33 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > I have not implemented FA_FL_FREE_ENOSPC and FA_ZERO_SPACE flags yet, as
> > *suggested* by Andreas in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/323 post.
> > If it is decided that these
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:42:50AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007 16:15 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:52:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > In XFS one of the (many) ALLOC modes is to zero existing data on allocate.
> > > For ext4 all this would
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > Can you clarify - what is the current behaviour when ENOSPC (or some other
> > > error) is hit? Does it
On Jun 26, 2007 16:15 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:52:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > In XFS one of the (many) ALLOC modes is to zero existing data on allocate.
> > For ext4 all this would mean is calling ext4_ext_mark_uninitialized() on
> > each extent. For
On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger 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 Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:52:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2007 19:15 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > +#define FA_FL_DEALLOC 0x01 /* default is allocate */
> > +#define FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE0x02 /* default is extend/shrink size */
> > +#define FA_FL_DEL_DATA 0x04 /*
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2007 20:33 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > I have not implemented FA_FL_FREE_ENOSPC and FA_ZERO_SPACE flags yet, as
> > *suggested* by Andreas in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/323 post.
> > If it is decided that these
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007 20:33 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
I have not implemented FA_FL_FREE_ENOSPC and FA_ZERO_SPACE flags yet, as
*suggested* by Andreas in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/323 post.
If it is decided that these flags
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:52:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007 19:15 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
+#define FA_FL_DEALLOC 0x01 /* default is allocate */
+#define FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE0x02 /* default is extend/shrink size */
+#define FA_FL_DEL_DATA 0x04 /* default is
On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger 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
On Jun 26, 2007 16:15 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:52:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
In XFS one of the (many) ALLOC modes is to zero existing data on allocate.
For ext4 all this would mean is calling ext4_ext_mark_uninitialized() on
each extent. For some
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Can you clarify - what is the current behaviour when ENOSPC (or some other
error) is hit? Does it keep the
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:42:50AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007 16:15 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:52:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
In XFS one of the (many) ALLOC modes is to zero existing data on allocate.
For ext4 all this would mean is
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007 20:33 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
I have not implemented FA_FL_FREE_ENOSPC and FA_ZERO_SPACE flags yet, as
*suggested* by Andreas in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/323 post.
If it is decided that these flags
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Can you clarify - what is the current behaviour when ENOSPC (or some other
error) is hit? Does it keep the
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:52:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007 19:15 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
+#define FA_FL_DEALLOC 0x01 /* default is allocate */
+#define FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE0x02 /* default is extend/shrink size */
+#define FA_FL_DEL_DATA 0x04 /* default is
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:42:50AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007 16:15 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:52:39PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
In XFS one of the (many) ALLOC modes is to zero existing data on allocate.
For ext4 all this would mean is
On Jun 25, 2007 19:15 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> +#define FA_FL_DEALLOC0x01 /* default is allocate */
> +#define FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE 0x02 /* default is extend/shrink size */
> +#define FA_FL_DEL_DATA 0x04 /* default is keep written data on DEALLOC
> */
In XFS one of the (many)
On Jun 25, 2007 20:33 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> I have not implemented FA_FL_FREE_ENOSPC and FA_ZERO_SPACE flags yet, as
> *suggested* by Andreas in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/323 post.
> If it is decided that these flags are also needed, I will update this
> patch. Thanks!
Can you
I have not implemented FA_FL_FREE_ENOSPC and FA_ZERO_SPACE flags yet, as
*suggested* by Andreas in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/323 post.
If it is decided that these flags are also needed, I will update this
patch. Thanks!
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 07:15:00PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
>
Implement new flags and values for mode argument.
This patch implements the new flags and values for the "mode" argument
of the fallocate system call. It is based on the discussion between
Andreas Dilger and David Chinner on the man page proposed (by the later)
on fallocate.
Signed-off-by: Amit
Implement new flags and values for mode argument.
This patch implements the new flags and values for the mode argument
of the fallocate system call. It is based on the discussion between
Andreas Dilger and David Chinner on the man page proposed (by the later)
on fallocate.
Signed-off-by: Amit
I have not implemented FA_FL_FREE_ENOSPC and FA_ZERO_SPACE flags yet, as
*suggested* by Andreas in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/323 post.
If it is decided that these flags are also needed, I will update this
patch. Thanks!
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 07:15:00PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007 20:33 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
I have not implemented FA_FL_FREE_ENOSPC and FA_ZERO_SPACE flags yet, as
*suggested* by Andreas in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/323 post.
If it is decided that these flags are also needed, I will update this
patch. Thanks!
Can you clarify
On Jun 25, 2007 19:15 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
+#define FA_FL_DEALLOC0x01 /* default is allocate */
+#define FA_FL_KEEP_SIZE 0x02 /* default is extend/shrink size */
+#define FA_FL_DEL_DATA 0x04 /* default is keep written data on DEALLOC
*/
In XFS one of the (many)
66 matches
Mail list logo
