From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jAIGswh5004014 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:54:58 -0500 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id jAIGsgT9093636 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:54:42 -0700 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id jAIGswcZ024765 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:54:58 -0700 Subject: Re: [RFC] sys_punchhole() From: Badari Pulavarty In-Reply-To: <20051118164227.GA14697@vestdata.no> References: <1131664994.25354.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051110153254.5dde61c5.akpm@osdl.org> <20051113150906.GA2193@spitz.ucw.cz> <20051118164227.GA14697@vestdata.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:54:53 -0800 Message-Id: <1132332893.24066.159.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ragnar =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kj=F8rstad?= Cc: Pavel Machek , Andrew Morton , andrea@suse.de, hugh@veritas.com, lkml , linux-mm List-ID: On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 17:42 +0100, Ragnar KjA,rstad wrote: > On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 03:09:06PM +0000, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > We discussed this in madvise(REMOVE) thread - to add support > > > > for sys_punchhole(fd, offset, len) to complete the functionality > > > > (in the future). > > > > > > > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-mm&m=113036713810002&w=2 > > > > > > > > What I am wondering is, should I invest time now to do it ? > > > > > > I haven't even heard anyone mention a need for this in the past 1-2 years. > > > > Some database people wanted it maybe month ago. It was replaced by some > > madvise hack... > > > sys_punchhole is also potentially very useful for Hirarchial Storage > Management. (Holes are typically used for data that have been migrated > to tape). I agree. But I am not interested in adding whole lot of complexity in the kernel, just because some "potential" use for this. I want to know, if people/products which really really need this feature and their requirements, before I go down that path. For that matter, HSM folks really care about DMAPI. But I never got them to explicitly tell me, what is the most minimum subset interfaces they *absolutely* need (and why) in the whole DMAPI specs :( I always hear complaints about not having DMAPI. Thanks, Badari -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org