On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 03:56:32PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> IIRC, the argument for FA_ALLOCATE changing file size is that
But it's not posix_fallocate; it's something more generic. glibc can
do posix_fallocate using truncate + fallocate.
> Note that the way XFS implements growing the file size after the
What's wrong with that? That seems very reasonable.
> That's would what I did because otherwise you'd use ftruncate64().
How many *real* users are there for ext4? Why does 'what ext4 does'
define 'the semantics'?
Surely semantics should be decided either by precedent (if there is an
existing relevant userbase) or sensible thought and some debate?
-
| Heiko Carstens | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| Linus Torvalds | Linux 2.6.21-rc4 |
| Michael Kerrisk | nanosleep() uses CLOCK_MONOTONIC, should be CLOCK_REALTIME? |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
git: | |
| Gary Thomas | Marvell 88E609x switch? |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
