From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] block: use discard if possible in blkdev_issue_discard() Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 05:05:13 -0800 Message-ID: <20140214130513.GA6127@infradead.org> References: <20140214043256.GA5145@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe To: Theodore Ts'o Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:60981 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750932AbaBNNFN (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:05:13 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140214043256.GA5145@thunk.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:32:56PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > 3) This functionality shouldn't be in the block device layer; if you > want something like this, add it to fs/ext4 instead, and other file > systems can optimize sb_issue_zeroout() themselves if they want. > > And if the answer is (1) or (2), do people mind if I carry this patch > in the ext4 tree, so I can use and test this right away, without > having to worry about merging with the block tree? (4): add a new flag to blkdev_issue_zeroout to say if deallocating the blocks is okay, and if yes proceed like (1). Requiring blocks to be zeroed, but not wanting to remove the provisioning seems like a perfectly valid request, especially from userspace (e.g. databases)