On 27/01/15 21:05, Max Reitz wrote:
On 2015-01-27 at 08:51, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
fallocate() works fine and could handle properly with arbitrary size
requests.
Maybe "could properly handle arbitrary size requests" (or
"...arbitrarily sized requests")?
There is no sense to reduce the amount of space to fallocate.
The bigger is the size, the better is the performance as the amount of
journal updates is reduced.
True for fallocate(). But is it true for xfs_write_zeroes(), too? I
guess so, but I don't know.
If it does, the patch looks good to me.
Max
checked.
xfs_ioc_space (ioctl handler) calls exactly the same xfs_zero_file_space as
performed by xfs_file_fallocate on fallocate path.
I will reflect this in the description
Regards,
Den
