From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p03Lu1jf132169 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:56:02 -0600 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 780B1230094 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 13:58:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id M7orZaovgcLE0qe6 for ; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 13:58:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 16:57:21 -0500 From: Josef Bacik Subject: Re: Hole Punching V3 Message-ID: <20110103215720.GA8392@localhost.localdomain> References: <1290044780-2902-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1290044780-2902-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Josef Bacik Cc: jack@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, cluster-devel@redhat.com, cmm@us.ibm.com, joel.becker@oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:46:14PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > This is version 3 of the hole punching series I've been posting. Not much has > changed, the history is below > > V2->V3 > -FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE must also have FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE in order to work > -formatting fixes > > V1->V2 > -Hole punching doesn't change file size > -Fixed the mode checks in ext4/btrfs/gfs2 so they do what they are supposed to > > I've updated my local copies of the xfsprogs patches I have to test this to use > KEEP_SIZE and PUNCH_HOLE together, I'll post them after it looks like these > patches are good to go, including the manpage update. The xfstest I wrote ran > fine both on xfs and btrfs (failing on btrfs obviously). Thanks, > I'd like to try and get this into the next merge window, it seems everybody is happy with it so far, any other comments? Provided everybody is ok with it, how would you like me to send it to you Linus? Would you prefer a pull request or will you just pull the patches off the mailinglist? Thanks, Josef _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs