Subject: Re: lseek() extension for spare files
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Matthew Mondor <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/22/2006 08:23:35
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:07:38 -0700
Bill Studenmund <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I don't see anything particularly wrong with having it (note I have
> > not yet reviewed the actual patch), but what's the application usage?
> Ok, I'm assuming Jason understands why we want to know about holes and
> was asking more how the application would use it, not why it would use
> it. :-)
> I expect that how you'd use it is something like (warning, pseudo-code,
> lots of stuff glossed over):
Interesting... just out of curiosity, could this by any chance also
potentially allow to implement the -P option of rm(1) in a way that may
work on file systems such as LFS (for which -P currently makes no
sense), if LFS supported the new lseek(2) extensions? Or would writing
a block at the start of a data position immediately after the seek still
cause that block to always be appended?
Note: Please only reply on the list, other mail is blocked by default.
Private messages from your address can be allowed by first asking.