[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: RFC: SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE implementation version 2
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 06:18:42PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> > the normal FFS code works but their indirect blocks, when addressed
> > with their disc addresses, are not up-to-date.
> ...so read them out of the cache.
easier to say than to do. Calculating and referring to the negative block
numbers is not so trivial as it seems. I can create `traces' of indirect block
numbers when i look up one file block number, but it would still be a hassle
and when you are also allowing writing while seeking for empty pieces its also
very dependent on how UBC works.
> > The FFS sparse region search code depends on the indirect blocks to
> > see where actual data is recorded and needs the indirect blocks to
> > be up-to-date. A range sync with only the negative range might also
> > suffice but since most if not all of the applications of this code
> > is dealing with backup/processing the VOP_FSYNC() is normally a
> > NOP.
> This shouldn't need to be there for what is purely a read operation on
It could be enhanced maybe but if its hindering operations in real-life it
could be done in a later phase.
Main Index |
Thread Index |