Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:36:10 +0300 From: Gleb Kurtsou <gleb.kurtsou@gmail.com> To: mdf@FreeBSD.org Cc: FreeBSD Arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: posix_fallocate(2) Message-ID: <20110414213610.GB92382@tops> 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 (14/04/2011 12:35), 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? It looks not to play well architecturally with modern COW file systems like ZFS and HUMMER. So potentially it can be implemented only for UFS. > 2) is this naive implementation useful enough to serve as a default > for all filesystems until someone with more knowledge fills them in? Maillist ate the patch. Only man page attached. > 3) are there any obvious bugs or missing elements? > > Thanks, > matthew > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110414213610.GB92382>