Hi! > >Question came up before, albeit with a different phrasing. One > >possible approach to benefit from this ability would be to create a > >"forget" operation. When a filesystem already knows that some data is > >unneeded (after a truncate or erase operation), it will ask the device > >to forget previously occupied blocks. > > > >The device then has the _option_ of handling the forget operation. > >Further reads on these blocks may return random data. > > > >And since noone stepped up to implement this yet, you can still get > >all the fame and glory yourself! ;) > > > > > > I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm not suggesting new > features in the VFS layer. I want to know if something breaks if I > implement this erase feature in the MMC layer. In essence the file > system has marked the sectors as "forget" by issuing a write to them. > The question is if it is assumed that they are unchanged if the write > fails half-way through.
Journaling filesystems may not like finding 0xff's all over their journal... -- 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=28 ttl=51 time=448769.1 ms - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
