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 p0ILKnEF159300 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 15:20:49 -0600 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A069327392F for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:23:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail19.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.104]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id vizUaQ7E7iFTEXbr for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:23:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:23:03 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: add fpunch command for hole punching via fallocate Message-ID: <20110118212303.GV28803@dastard> References: <1295009545-17839-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com> <20110118125112.GB21440@infradead.org> <20110118130603.GA23491@dhcp231-156.rdu.redhat.com> <20110118131203.GA4349@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110118131203.GA4349@infradead.org> 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Josef Bacik , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:12:03AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. My reasoning was that: a) it is consistent with other xfs_io allocation manipulation command structures such as resvsp/unresvsp b) "punch" is less to type than "fallocate -p" c) self documenting in scripts e.g. -c "punch 4k 4k" is much more obvious than -c "fallocate -p 4k 4k" and saves a man page lookup when reading the script. d) punch as a top level command will show up in the "xfs_io -c help", not require you to know it is a suboption of the "falloc" command to find out how to use it. e) the xfs_io command does not have to have the same name and structure as the underlying API that implements the functionality the commands execute. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs