From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p0ID9jdT129653 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:09:45 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id C4BAB1EA07FB for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:12:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id QuIq5LASNaFwmDgn for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:12:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:12:03 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: add fpunch command for hole punching via fallocate Message-ID: <20110118131203.GA4349@infradead.org> References: <1295009545-17839-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> <20110118125112.GB21440@infradead.org> <20110118130603.GA23491@dhcp231-156.rdu.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110118130603.GA23491@dhcp231-156.rdu.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: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:06:03AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > Sounds good. So which do we want, a new command or a new flag? Thanks, I'll wait for dave to chime in. I think we should absolutely expose it as a fallocate flag, but if there's a good reason we can also expose it as a separate command. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs