On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 04:09:20PM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:51:56AM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
> >But this is really irrelevant - the issue at hand is what we want
> >for VFS level delalloc support. IMO, that mechanism needs to support
> >both XFS
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:24:37PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I'm a big proponent of having proper common delalloc code, but the
> one proposed here is not generic for the existing filesystem using
> delalloc. It's still on my todo list to revamp the xfs code to get
> rid of some of the exi
I'm a bit worried about one thing ... it looks like XFS and ext4
use different techniques to order data and metadata referencing
them. now I'm not that optimistic that we can separate ordering
from delalloc itself clean and reasonable way. In general, I'd
prefer common code in fs/ (mm/?) of course
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:30:36AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Sigh, we HAVE a patch that was only adding delalloc to ext4, but it
> was rejected because "that functionality should go into the VFS".
> Since the performance improvement of delalloc is quite large, we'd
> like to get this into the
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 09:48:10PM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
> I think the latter one is better because it supports bs < pagesize
> (though I'm not sure about data=ordered yet). I'm not against putting
> most of the patch into fs/ext4/, but at least few bits to be changed
> in fs/ - exports in fs/m
Andreas Dilger wrote:
Sigh, we HAVE a patch that was only adding delalloc to ext4, but it
was rejected because "that functionality should go into the VFS".
Since the performance improvement of delalloc is quite large, we'd
like to get this into the kernel one way or another. Can we make a
decisi
On Jul 28, 2007 20:51 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> That doesn't mean I want to arge against Alex's code although I'd of
> course be more happy if we could actually shared code between multiple
> filesystems.
>
> Of ourse the code in it's current form should not go into mpage.c but
> rather i
[cc trim on purpose, just autofs interest here]
On Jul 28 2007 14:45, Ian Kent wrote:
>
>Oh .. sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention.
>
>But now might be a good time to propose the removal of autofs and rename
>autofs4 to autofs. I would need to provide some way to map autofs4
>module load reque
Hi,
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 19:42 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I was looking into cleaning up the the read actor mess now that sendfile
> uses splice and notices gfs2 now uses do_generic_mapping_read.
>
> The use is rather odd because it's used for reading small structures
> from kernelspace a
David Chinner wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:51:56AM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
But this is really irrelevant - the issue at hand is what we want
for VFS level delalloc support. IMO, that mechanism needs to support
both XFS and ext4, and I'd prefer if it doesn't perpetuate the
bufferhead abuses
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:51:56AM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >Using a new API for new functionality is a bad thing?
>
> if existing API can be used ...
Sure, but using the existing APIs is no good if the only filesystem
in the kernel that supports delalloc cannot use the n
11 matches
Mail list logo
