On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 04:44:55PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 06:56:18PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 02:14:43PM -0700, Sunil Mushran wrote: > > > Frankly I see no point extending the ioctl interface when we have > > > a syscall interface. > > > > > > > I'd even go so far as to say we could probably axe the xfs and ocfs2 ioctls > > since we have the fallocate interface :). Thanks, > > These ioctls are in long use. Granted, it is for the small > subset of users that know xfs and ocfs2 can do this, but still. > <venkman>Breaking userspace is *bad*.</venkman>
Yeah I wasn't serious, though I do wish there was a way to mark these sort of interfaces deprecated to give us a path to retire old interfaces. > More interesting would be to bring the ioctls up to generic code > and have them backended by fallocate. I'm not sure they map without > looking deeper, but it's at least an idea. > I just did a cursory look and it seems like that would work out ok. Thanks, Josef _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
