> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:16:58 +0530 "Amit K. Arora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (1) The final interface is yet to be decided. We have the option of
> chosing from one of these:
> a> modifying posix_fallocate() in glibc
> b> using fcntl
> c> using ftruncate, or
> d> using t
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 03:16:58PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> The patches for e2fsprogs and fsx-linux are available with me. I can
> post them if anyone is interested to try/test the preallocation patches.
> Also, I have a small test program/tool written which can be used for
> unit testing.
He
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 02:20:43PM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
> Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > If we go with ioctl interface, we need to chose the return
> >value from the ioctl. We should either return "0" for success and
> >errno for failure, or we should be returning number of bytes
> >preallocated.
Mingming Cao wrote:
> Amit K. Arora wrote:
>
>> Outstanding Issues:
>> --
>> (1) The final interface is yet to be decided. We have the option of
>> chosing from one of these:
>> a> modifying posix_fallocate() in glibc
>> b> using fcntl
>> c> using ftruncate, or
>>
Amit K. Arora wrote:
Outstanding Issues:
--
(1) The final interface is yet to be decided. We have the option of
chosing from one of these:
a> modifying posix_fallocate() in glibc
b> using fcntl
c> using ftruncate, or
d> using the ioctl interface.
Please Note (especially below):
--
This is being resubmitted as part of the recall for ext4 patches.
The patches are based on 2.6.20-rc5 kernel version.
These patches require the "EXTENT OVERLAP BUGFIX" patch submitted by
me earlier (on Jan 16th).
Description:
-
