From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <b5e24510f664afcd5b10c0c6fec41487@coraid.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] truncation via wstat on ken's fs
From: Brantley Coile <brantley@coraid.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:18:59 -0400
In-Reply-To: <f5bbaa3d61cddff0ebce8441ed44744f@collyer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ef6c7dbe-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> Changing the length is easy, but giving back the no-longer-needed
> blocks is messy, involving a recursive walk of the indirect blocks.
> I'm tempted to just change the length, which gives the desired
> user-visible effect, unless the side-effect of freeing the
> unneeded storage is important to someone.

Leaving the blocks there was the first thing I thought of.
They will get reclaimed when the file is deleted anyway.
Seems like a good idea to me.