Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate()

From: Dave Kleikamp
Date: Thu Mar 01 2007 - 18:10:00 EST


On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 14:59 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:44:16 +0000
> Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 14:25 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 00:04:45 +0530
> > > "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > +asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct file *file;
> > > > + struct inode *inode;
> > > > + long ret = -EINVAL;
> > > > + file = fget(fd);
> > > > + if (!file)
> > > > + goto out;
> > > > + inode = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
> > > > + if (inode->i_op && inode->i_op->fallocate)
> > > > + ret = inode->i_op->fallocate(inode, offset, len);
> > > > + else
> > > > + ret = -ENOTTY;
> > > > + fput(file);
> > > > +out:
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +}
> > >
> >
> > > ENOTTY is a bit unconventional - we often use EINVAL for this sort of
> > > thing. But EINVAL has other meanings for posix_fallocate() and isn't
> > > really appropriate here anyway. So I'm not sure what would be better...
> >
> > Would EINVAL (or whatever) make it back to the caller of
> > posix_fallocate(), or would glibc fall back to its current
> > implementation?
> >
> > Forgive me if I haven't put enough thought into it, but would it be
> > useful to create a generic_fallocate() that writes zeroed pages for any
> > non-existent pages in the range? I don't know how glibc currently
> > implements posix_fallocate(), but maybe the kernel could do it more
> > efficiently, even in generic code. Maybe we don't care, since the major
> > file systems can probably do something better in their own code.
>
> Given that glibc already implements fallocate for all filesystems, it will
> need to continue to do so for filesystems which don't implement this
> syscall - otherwise applications would start breaking.

I didn't make it clear, but my point was to call generic_fallocate if
the file system did not define i_op->allocate().

if (inode->i_op && inode->i_op->fallocate)
ret = inode->i_op->fallocate(inode, offset, len);
else
ret = generic_fallocate(inode, offset, len);

I'm not sure it's worth the effort, but I thought I'd throw the idea out
there.

--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/