From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Fiemap, an extent mapping ioctl Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:21:21 -0500 Message-ID: <483C3501.60705@sandeen.net> References: <20080525000148.GJ8325@wotan.suse.de> <20080525194203.GB24328@infradead.org> <200805270948.51898.chris.mason@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Mark Fasheh , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Andreas Dilger , Kalpak Shah , Eric Sandeen , Josef Bacik To: Chris Mason Return-path: Received: from sandeen.net ([209.173.210.139]:27656 "EHLO sandeen.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756554AbYE0QVW (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2008 12:21:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200805270948.51898.chris.mason@oracle.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Chris Mason wrote: > On Sunday 25 May 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Thanks for doing this Mark ;) > >> On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 05:01:48PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote: >>> * FIEMAP_FLAG_HSM_READ >>> If the extent is offline, retrieve it before mapping and do not flag >>> it as FIEMAP_EXTENT_SECONDARY. This flag has no effect if the file >>> system does not support HSM. >> Given that there's no HSM support in mainline this should not be added. >> It'll be useful once we add proper HSM support, though :) >> > > The HSM flag doesn't hurt, and it allows the people actually shipping hsm > patches to use fiemap without extending the api themselves. Reserving the > flag isn't a bad idea. Here I agree. HSM is a generic enough concept, and I think this interface's API w.r.t. HSM is well-enough defined that there's no reason not to go ahead & put it in now, IMHO. -Eric