Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:37:13 -0700 From: mdf@FreeBSD.org To: FreeBSD Arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: posix_fallocate(2) Message-ID: <BANLkTinYLh8HyCgZNpEbVsn4hF4s=c-8wg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimYzJ11w9X1OHShEn2wi6gjHx=YjA@mail.gmail.com> References: <BANLkTimYzJ11w9X1OHShEn2wi6gjHx=YjA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:35 PM, <mdf@freebsd.org> wrote: > For work we need a functionality in our filesystem that is pretty much > like posix_fallocate(2), so we're using the name and I've added a > default VOP_ALLOCATE definition that does the right, but dumb, thing. > > The most recent mention of this function in FreeBSD was another thread > lamenting it's failure to exist: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2010-February/059268.htm= l > > The attached files are the core of the kernel implementation of the > syscall and a default VOP for any filesystem not supporting > VOP_ALLOCATE, which allows the syscall to work as expected but in a > non-performant manner. =A0I didn't see this syscall in NetBSD or > OpenBSD, so I plan to add it to the end of our syscall table. I should note that I have a bunch of unit tests as well, but they're currently using $WORK's test harness, so I plan to figure out how to re-write them into the existing prove(1) harness. Thanks, matthew > > What I wanted to check with -arch about was: > > 1) is there still a desire for this syscall? > 2) is this naive implementation useful enough to serve as a default > for all filesystems until someone with more knowledge fills them in? > 3) are there any obvious bugs or missing elements? > > Thanks, > matthew >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTinYLh8HyCgZNpEbVsn4hF4s=c-8wg>