[Cluster-devel] [PATCH V5 26/30] gfs2: Convert aio_read/write ops to read/write_iter

[Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>]

Hi,

On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 08:34 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On 01/10/2013 04:10 AM, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 13:58 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com>
> >> Cc: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: cluster-devel at redhat.com
> >> ---
> >>  fs/gfs2/file.c | 21 ++++++++++-----------
> >>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/gfs2/file.c b/fs/gfs2/file.c
> >> index 991ab2d..63af1a6 100644
> >> --- a/fs/gfs2/file.c
> >> +++ b/fs/gfs2/file.c
> >> @@ -655,10 +655,9 @@ static int gfs2_fsync(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end,
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  /**
> >> - * gfs2_file_aio_write - Perform a write to a file
> >> + * gfs2_file_write_iter - Perform a write to a file
> >>   * @iocb: The io context
> >> - * @iov: The data to write
> >> - * @nr_segs: Number of @iov segments
> >> + * @iter: The data to write
> >>   * @pos: The file position
> >>   *
> >>   * We have to do a lock/unlock here to refresh the inode size for
> >> @@ -668,11 +667,11 @@ static int gfs2_fsync(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end,
> >>   *
> >>   */
> >>  
> >> -static ssize_t gfs2_file_aio_write(struct kiocb *iocb, const struct iovec *iov,
> >> -				   unsigned long nr_segs, loff_t pos)
> >> +static ssize_t gfs2_file_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter,
> >> +				    loff_t pos)
> >>  {
> >>  	struct file *file = iocb->ki_filp;
> >> -	size_t writesize = iov_length(iov, nr_segs);
> >> +	size_t writesize = iov_iter_count(iter);
> > 
> > Hmm, I had a vague memory that we'd agreed to call this iov_iter_length
> > rather than iov_iter_count in order to keep the existing naming and to
> > make it sound more like what it is (the length of the data) as opposed
> > to the number of individual buffers to be written.
> 
> I had originally agreed, thinking it would be a better name, but then I
> realized that iov_iter_count() has been defined that way since 2.6.24
> and I didn't want to introduce any more change in this patchset than
> necessary since it's already pretty extensive.
> 
Ok, that makes sense to me,

Steve.

> > Not that it is desperately important, but just to flag it up in case it
> > got forgotten at some stage,
> > 
> > Steve.
> > 
> >