From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: Introduce blkdev_issue_zeroout_discard() function Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 11:20:25 -0500 Message-ID: <20141107162025.GA607@thunk.org> References: <1415336894-15327-1-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <1415336894-15327-4-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <20141107082610.GC8394@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.de To: "Martin K. Petersen" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:42:24AM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > >>>>> "Christoph" == Christoph Hellwig writes: > > Christoph> I'm not a fan of adding another function here and would > Christoph> prefer a flag, but it looks correct, > > That was my original approach too but I didn't want to stomp over all > the existing callers. Although there only are few. > > Ted: Which would you prefer? There are *very* few users of blkdev_issue_zeroout(), and aside for a single drbd, they are all in the block layer. It would only start affecting ext4 when we plumb that flag through to sb_issue_zeroout (which your patch doesn't currently do), at which point it will affect 4 call sites in ext4, and a call site in gfs2 and hpfs2. So I'd be in favor of adding a flag to to blkdev_issue_zeroout(), and I would have a slight preference for also modifying sb_issue_zeroout so the flag gets plumbed all the way through to the fs-level callers. Cheers, - Ted