Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:08:32 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: mdf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: posix_fallocate(2) Message-ID: <201104141708.32568.jhb@freebsd.org> 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 Thursday, April 14, 2011 3:35:34 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.html > > 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. I didn't see this syscall in NetBSD or > OpenBSD, so I plan to add it to the end of our syscall table. > > 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? Hmm, this would be good to have. Unfortunately the list manager software ate everything except the manpage. Can you post the patches at a URL? -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201104141708.32568.jhb>