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 q9OF8BT1018111 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:08:11 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id yMAzHvV5AO9A75jD (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:09:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:09:51 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/2] fiemap: filesystem free space mapping Message-ID: <20121024150951.GA24318@infradead.org> References: <1350537079-16246-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20121023123044.GG7341@infradead.org> <20121023215313.GQ4291@dastard> <20121024114711.GB11262@shiny> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121024114711.GB11262@shiny> 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: Chris Mason , Dave Chinner , Christoph Hellwig , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 07:47:17AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > I'm all for it in the main fiemap call, it makes much more sense for the > users I think. How so? Current fiemap is a per-inode information, Daves new call is per-fs. Making one a flag of another is a gross user interface. In addition we're bound to get issue where filesystems fail to wire up fiemap to the tons of different iops just for this operation, or accidentally wire up "real" fiemap to things like special files or pipes. Btw, I'd like t orestate that I really love to see this functionality in the VFS, just not multiplexed over FIEMAP. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs