From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7F5C433DF for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 17:26:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E57EC207DA for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 17:26:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728368AbgGIR0h (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2020 13:26:37 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:40230 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726765AbgGIR0h (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2020 13:26:37 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 876C168AEF; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 19:26:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 19:26:34 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: dsterba@suse.cz, Christoph Hellwig , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lavr Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: wire up iter_file_splice_write Message-ID: <20200709172634.GA17914@lst.de> References: <20200709162206.113927-1-hch@lst.de> <20200709172428.GD15161@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200709172428.GD15161@twin.jikos.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 07:24:28PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 06:22:06PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > btrfs implements the iter_write op and thus can use the more efficient > > iov_iter based splice implementation. For now falling back to the less > > efficient default is pretty harmless, but I have a pending series that > > removes the default, and thus would cause btrfs to not support splice > > at all. > > Do you want this patch to go in this cycle? I have some more patches > queued and don't mind adding it if it makes development of your patchset > easier. That would be great.