From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Moyer Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] vfs: Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:51:31 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20141111064417.GT23575@dastard> <20141114163912.GA23769@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141114163912.GA23769@redhat.com> (Dave Jones's message of "Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:39:12 -0500") Sender: owner-linux-aio@kvack.org To: Dave Jones Cc: Dave Chinner , Milosz Tanski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org, Mel Gorman , Volker Lendecke , Tejun Heo , Theodore Ts'o , Al Viro , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Michael Kerrisk , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Dave Jones writes: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:32:53AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: > > > > Can you write a test (or set of) for fstests that exercises this new > > > functionality? I'm not worried about performance, just > > > correctness.... > > > > On the subject of testing, I added support to trinity (attached, > > untested). That did raise one question. Do we expect applications to > > #include to get the RWF_NONBLOCK definition? > > Trinity will at least need an addition to include/compat.h for > older headers that won't have the definition. Looks ok otherwise. OK, I'll add that. > Also, I usually sit on stuff like this until the syscall numbers are > in Linus tree. This is 3.19 stuff I presume ? > istr akpm picked up execveat recently, so if that goes in first, we'll > need to respin this anyway.. Sure. I just wanted to test with trinity *before* it makes it into the kernel. Crazy, I know. ;-) Cheers, Jeff -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux AIO, see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/ Don't email: aart@kvack.org