Re: 2.6.21-ext4-1

2007-05-09 Thread Eric Sandeen
Amit K. Arora wrote: > And, how does XFS behave now if we write to mmapped preallocated blocks, > since XFS also doesn't have ->page_mkwrite() implemented as of date ? unwritten extents remain unwritten after mmap() modifies them http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=418 :) -Eric - To u

Re: 2.6.21-ext4-1

2007-05-09 Thread Amit K. Arora
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 09:24:49AM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 03:05:56PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 12:50 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > > BTW, have you guys tested mmap writes into unwritten extents? ;) > > > > > I am not sure, Amit, have you

Re: 2.6.21-ext4-1

2007-05-08 Thread David Chinner
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 03:05:56PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 12:50 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:56:23PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote: > > > In any case, it would be useful to add a new set of testsuites for the > > > new fallocate() syscall and fs

Re: 2.6.21-ext4-1

2007-05-08 Thread Mingming Cao
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 12:50 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:56:23PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote: > > In any case, it would be useful to add a new set of testsuites for the > > new fallocate() syscall and fsstress in LTP testsuites to automatically > > the preallocation code i

Re: 2.6.21-ext4-1

2007-05-07 Thread David Chinner
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:56:23PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote: > In any case, it would be useful to add a new set of testsuites for the > new fallocate() syscall and fsstress in LTP testsuites to automatically > the preallocation code in ext4/XFS. I hacked an existing XFS test prog to do manual tes

Re: 2.6.21-ext4-1

2007-05-07 Thread Mingming Cao
On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 11:14 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > I've respun the ext4 development patchset, with Amit's updated fallocate > patches. I've added Dave's patch to add ia64 support to the fallocate > system call, but *not* the XFS fallocate support patches. (Probably > better for them to liv

Re: 2.6.21-ext4-1

2007-04-30 Thread Theodore Tso
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 01:16:19PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Why isn't this stuff going upstream rapidly? Some of the patches are ready to be pushed upstream, and that will be happening shortly. In the case of the fallocate patches, the system call interface hadn't been completely closed, so we

Re: 2.6.21-ext4-1

2007-04-30 Thread Jeff Garzik
Theodore Ts'o wrote: I've respun the ext4 development patchset, with Amit's updated fallocate patches. I've added Dave's patch to add ia64 support to the fallocate system call, but *not* the XFS fallocate support patches. (Probably better for them to live in an xfs tree, where they can more eas

Re: 2.6.21-ext4-1

2007-04-30 Thread Alex Tomas
Theodore Ts'o wrote: P.S. One bug which I've noted --- if there is a failure due to disk filling up, running e2fsck on the filesystem will show that the i_blocks fields on the inodes where there was a failure to allocate disk blocks are left incorrect. I'm guessing this is a bug in the delayed

Re: 2.6.21-ext4-1

2007-04-30 Thread Theodore Tso
Sorry, I forgot to include the URL's where ext4 development patchset can be found: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/ext4-patches/2.6.21-ext4-1 - Ted On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:14:57AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > I&#x

2.6.21-ext4-1

2007-04-30 Thread Theodore Ts'o
I've respun the ext4 development patchset, with Amit's updated fallocate patches. I've added Dave's patch to add ia64 support to the fallocate system call, but *not* the XFS fallocate support patches. (Probably better for them to live in an xfs tree, where they can more easily tested and updated