All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Cc: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@redhat.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] direct-io: btrfs: avoid splitting dio requests for non-btrfs filesystems
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:58:33 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101102185833.GA7404@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101102145717.GA2531@localhost.localdomain>

On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 10:57:18AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> (which I did anyway because of my bug).  So maybe the right idea is to rip out
> my logical offset tests altogether and fix dio so we treat buffer_boundary()
> like gospel.  That way Btrfs can get what it needs without having this weird
> special code, and then we can look at how other fs's set buffer_boundary (I'm
> pretty sure ext2/3 are the only ones) and make sure they are setting it when
> they really mean to.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me.  I really don't like the flag in
the kiocb in this patch, and handling it as part of the get_blocks
callback sounds much better to me.  I don't know enough about the
bounary blocks to know if we can reuse them - if we can it's perfect,
if not another buffer flag seems like the way to go.


  reply	other threads:[~2010-11-02 18:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-02 12:18 [RFC][PATCH] direct-io: btrfs: avoid splitting dio requests for non-btrfs filesystems Christian Ehrhardt
2010-11-02 12:18 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-11-02 14:57 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-02 14:57   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-02 14:57   ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-02 18:58   ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-11-02 12:18 Christian Ehrhardt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20101102185833.GA7404@infradead.org \
    --to=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
    --cc=ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=jbacik@redhat.com \
    --cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=josef@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.