From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ZSO4j-0004E4-Sj for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:32:06 +0000 Message-ID: <1440070300.31419.202.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ubifs: Allow O_DIRECT From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: Dongsheng Yang , Richard Weinberger , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:31:40 +0300 In-Reply-To: <55D542C5.6040500@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1440016553-26481-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1440016553-26481-2-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <55D542C5.6040500@cn.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 11:00 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote: > On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications > > blindly use the O_DIRECT flag. > > Instead of failing upon open() we can do better and fall back > > to buffered IO. > > Hmmmm, to be honest, I am not sure we have to do it as Dave > suggested. I think that's just a work-around for current fstests. > > IMHO, perform a buffered IO when user request direct IO without > any warning sounds not a good idea. Maybe adding a warning would > make it better. > > I think we need more discussion about AIO&DIO in ubifs, and actually > I have a plan for it. But I have not listed the all cons and pros of > it so far. > > Artem, what's your opinion? Yes, this is my worry too. Basically, we need to see what is the "common practice" here, and follow it. This requires a small research. What would be the most popular Linux FS which does not support direct I/O? Can we check what it does? Artem.