From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D437F3F for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:47:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF8DE304039 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:47:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id t7E1io9ntLpf0grp for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:47:33 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] xfs: fold xfs_change_file_space into xfs_ioc_space Message-ID: <20131015214733.GW4446@dastard> References: <20131012075503.370510641@bombadil.infradead.org> <20131012075640.637625757@bombadil.infradead.org> <20131014050807.GJ4446@dastard> <20131015153143.GA1612@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131015153143.GA1612@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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 08:31:43AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 04:08:07PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > One question, though: > > > > > + case XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP: > > > + case XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP64: > > > + case XFS_IOC_FREESP: > > > + case XFS_IOC_FREESP64: > > > > Should we, at this point, mark these ioctls as deprecated and > > schedule then for removal given that we've recommended against using > > them for the past 10 years and we have fallocate() now? > > I don't see any reason to remove them given that it's only about 15 > extra lines of code. But if you care enough to get rid of them we > probably need multiple years of actuall warnings emmited when used > before actually removing them. I would be very surprised if there > aren't same users that wouldn't argue very vocally against their > removal. I'll put a significant quantity of beer on the table if anyone other than xfstests is actually using these ioctls. In all my years of working with XFS, I've never seen a single user of them, even on Irix. The one person I know who was considering using XFS_IOC_ALLOCSP convinced me (quite easily) to implement XFS_IOC_ZERO_RANGE for them because writing all those zeros to re-initialise pre-allocated VM images was going to be prohibitively expensive... Anyway, it was just a thought. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs