From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ubifs: Allow O_DIRECT Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:18:09 +0300 Message-ID: <1440400689.15510.30.camel@gmail.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> <1440070300.31419.202.camel@gmail.com> <55D5BC92.8050903@nod.at> <1440074048.31419.204.camel@gmail.com> Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Richard Weinberger , Dongsheng Yang , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1440074048.31419.204.camel@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 15:34 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > > 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? > > > > All popular filesystems seem to support direct IO. > > That's the problem, application do not expect O_DIRECT to fail. > > > > My intention was to do it like exofs: > > Fair enough, thanks! > > Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy Richard, you mention this was suggested by Dave, could you please pint to the discussion, if possible? Artem.