Re: Read support for fat_fallocate()? (was [v2] fat: editions to support fat_fallocate())

From: OGAWA Hirofumi
Date: Mon Feb 18 2013 - 10:00:02 EST

Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> Hm. My concerns are compatibility and reliability. Although We can
>> change on-disk format if need, but I don't think it can be compatible
>> and reliable. If so, who wants to use it? I feel there is no reason to
>> use FAT if there is no compatible.
>> Well, anyway, possible solution would be, we can pre-allocate physical
>> blocks via fallocate(2) or something, but discard pre-allocated blocks
>> at ->release() (or before unmount at least). This way would have
>> compatibility (no on-disk change over unmount) and possible breakage
>> would be same with normal extend write patterns on kernel crash
>> (i.e. Windows or fsck will truncate after i_size).
> We don't need to consider device unplugging case ?
> If yes, I can rework fat fallocate patch as your suggestion.

In my suggestion, I think, kernel crash or something like unplugging
cases handles has no change from current way.

Any pre-allocated blocks are truncated by fsck as inconsistency state,
like crash before updating i_size for normal extend write. I.e. across
unmount, nobody care whether pre-allocated or not. IOW, if there is
inconsistent between i_size and cluster chain (includes via
fallocate(2)) across unmount, it should be handled as broken state.

In short, the lifetime of pre-allocated blocks are from fallocate(2) to
->release() only.

OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at