Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call

2007-04-29 Thread Chris Wedgwood
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 mo

Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call

2007-04-29 Thread David Chinner
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

Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call

2007-04-29 Thread Chris Wedgwood
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

[PATCH 1/1] fs: add 4th case to do_path_lookup

2007-04-29 Thread Josef Sipek
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c index 2995fba..1516a9b 100644 --- a/fs/namei.c +++ b/fs/namei.c @@ -1125,6 +1125,10 @@ static int fastcall do_path_lookup(int dfd, const char *name, nd->mnt = mntget(fs->rootmnt);

[PATCH 0/1] [RFC] New mode for path_lookup (V1)

2007-04-29 Thread Josef Sipek
Stackable file systems frequently need to lookup paths or path components starting from an arbitrary point in the namespace (identified by a dentry and a vfsmount). Currently, such file systems use lookup_one_len, which is frowned upon [1] as it does not pass the lookup intent along; not passing a

[PATCH] Add preallocation beyond EOF to fallocate

2007-04-29 Thread David Chinner
Add new mode to ->fallocate() to allow allocation to occur beyond the current EOF without changing the file size. Implement in XFS ->fallocate() vector. Signed-Off-By: Dave Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_iops.c |8 +--- include/linux/fs.h |1 + 2 files

[PATCH] XFS ->fallocate() support

2007-04-29 Thread David Chinner
Add XFS support for ->fallocate() vector. Signed-Off-By: Dave Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_iops.c | 48 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+) Index: 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_iops.c ==

[PATCH] ia64 fallocate syscall

2007-04-29 Thread David Chinner
ia64 fallocate syscall support. Signed-Off-By: Dave Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- arch/ia64/kernel/entry.S |1 + include/asm-ia64/unistd.h |3 ++- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: 2.6.x-xfs-new/arch/ia64/kernel/entry.S ===

Re: [RFC] TileFS - a proposal for scalable integrity checking

2007-04-29 Thread Matt Mackall
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 07:23:49PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > > This is a relatively simple scheme for making a filesystem with > > incremental online consistency checks of both data and metadata. > > Overhead can be well under 1% di

Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call

2007-04-29 Thread David Chinner
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 t

Re: [RFC] TileFS - a proposal for scalable integrity checking

2007-04-29 Thread Theodore Tso
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > This is a relatively simple scheme for making a filesystem with > incremental online consistency checks of both data and metadata. > Overhead can be well under 1% disk space and CPU overhead may also be > very small, while greatly impr

Re: [RFC] TileFS - a proposal for scalable integrity checking

2007-04-29 Thread Matt Mackall
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 05:58:48PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Sat, 28 April 2007 17:05:22 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > > > > Some things we need to check during fsck: > > > > all directories point to in-use inodes > > all in-use inodes are referred to by directories > > all inodes in use ar

Re: [RFC] TileFS - a proposal for scalable integrity checking

2007-04-29 Thread Jörn Engel
On Sun, 29 April 2007 18:34:59 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is a relatively simple scheme for making a filesystem with > > incremental online consistency checks of both data and metadata. > > Overhead can be well under 1% disk space and CPU overhea

Re: [RFC] TileFS - a proposal for scalable integrity checking

2007-04-29 Thread Matt Mackall
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 06:34:59PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is a relatively simple scheme for making a filesystem with > > incremental online consistency checks of both data and metadata. > > Overhead can be well under 1% disk space and CPU ove

Re: [RFC] TileFS - a proposal for scalable integrity checking

2007-04-29 Thread Jörn Engel
On Sat, 28 April 2007 17:05:22 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > > Some things we need to check during fsck: > > all directories point to in-use inodes > all in-use inodes are referred to by directories > all inodes in use are marked in use > all free inodes are marked free > all inodes point to

Re: [RFC] TileFS - a proposal for scalable integrity checking

2007-04-29 Thread Jörn Engel
On Sun, 29 April 2007 07:57:18 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 02:21:13PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote: > > Thanks. I think this is a bit more direct solution than ChunkFS, but > a) I haven't followed ChunkFS closely and b) I haven't been thinking > about fsck very long, so this is

Re: [RFC] TileFS - a proposal for scalable integrity checking

2007-04-29 Thread Andi Kleen
Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is a relatively simple scheme for making a filesystem with > incremental online consistency checks of both data and metadata. > Overhead can be well under 1% disk space and CPU overhead may also be > very small, while greatly improving filesystem int

Re: [RFC] TileFS - a proposal for scalable integrity checking

2007-04-29 Thread Matt Mackall
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 02:21:13PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Sat, 28 April 2007 17:05:22 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > > > > This is a relatively simple scheme for making a filesystem with > > incremental online consistency checks of both data and metadata. > > Overhead can be well under 1% dis

Re: [RFC] TileFS - a proposal for scalable integrity checking

2007-04-29 Thread Jörn Engel
On Sat, 28 April 2007 17:05:22 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > > This is a relatively simple scheme for making a filesystem with > incremental online consistency checks of both data and metadata. > Overhead can be well under 1% disk space and CPU overhead may also be > very small, while greatly impro