On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 03:22:05PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > "Martin" == Martin K Petersen writes:
>
> Martin> What would you prefer as the default for the ext4 use case? To
> Martin> allocate or to discard?
>
> I didn't get a preference for whether sb_issue_zeroout() should disca
> "Martin" == Martin K Petersen writes:
Martin> What would you prefer as the default for the ext4 use case? To
Martin> allocate or to discard?
I didn't get a preference for whether sb_issue_zeroout() should discard
or allocate.
But here's an updated patch 3...
commit eb23c9e71e08b7f467cbc3
> "Darrick" == Darrick J Wong writes:
Darrick> Can this be plumbed into a BLK* ioctl too? I'll write a patch,
Darrick> if this is ok with everyone:
Darrick> ...and make it zap the page cache per earlier discussion. This
Darrick> seems to be a good fit with what we've been discussing for
Da
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 12:08:14AM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> blkdev_issue_discard() will zero a given block range on disk. This is
> done by way of either WRITE SAME or regular WRITE. I.e. the blocks on
> disk will be written and thus provisioned.
>
> There are use cases where the desired
> "Ted" == Theodore Ts'o writes:
Ted> So I'd be in favor of adding a flag to to blkdev_issue_zeroout(),
Ted> and I would have a slight preference for also modifying
Ted> sb_issue_zeroout so the flag gets plumbed all the way through to
Ted> the fs-level callers.
OK. I'll do that, then. I alwa
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:42:24AM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > "Christoph" == Christoph Hellwig writes:
>
> Christoph> I'm not a fan of adding another function here and would
> Christoph> prefer a flag, but it looks correct,
>
> That was my original approach too but I didn't want t
> "Christoph" == Christoph Hellwig writes:
Christoph> I'm not a fan of adding another function here and would
Christoph> prefer a flag, but it looks correct,
That was my original approach too but I didn't want to stomp over all
the existing callers. Although there only are few.
Ted: Which
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 12:08:14AM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> blkdev_issue_discard() will zero a given block range on disk. This is
> done by way of either WRITE SAME or regular WRITE. I.e. the blocks on
> disk will be written and thus provisioned.
>
> There are use cases where the desired
blkdev_issue_discard() will zero a given block range on disk. This is
done by way of either WRITE SAME or regular WRITE. I.e. the blocks on
disk will be written and thus provisioned.
There are use cases where the desired behavior is to zero the blocks but
unprovision them if possible. The blocks m
9 matches
Mail list logo
