From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] libext2fs: introduce lseek SEEK_DATA/HOLE Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:59:18 -0500 Message-ID: <20130116145918.GC6052@thunk.org> References: <1358173111-10511-1-git-send-email-wenqing.lz@taobao.com> <20130115185509.GA17719@thunk.org> <20130116120455.GA21029@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Zheng Liu Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:43788 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753149Ab3APO7X (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:59:23 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130116120455.GA21029@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 08:04:56PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > Yeah, it allows us to skip to the next data/hole directly if the extents > interface is used. But if we do that, we will need to handle > extent-based file and indirect-based file resptively like this. > > if (inode->i_flags & EXT4_EXTENTS_FL) { > ext2fs_file_ext_llseek_data(); > ... > } else { > ext2fs_file_ind_llseek_data(); > ... > } > > I am not sure whether it is too complicated or not for us. What do you > think? I'm not too worried about the performance issues for debugfs. But for clients who are accessing ext[234] using libext2fs and FUSE, they would probably notice in at least some circumstances. I'm not that worried about the complexity, but it's also not a high priority thing, either --- it's a "nice to have", not a "must have". Regards, - Ted