From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com>
Cc: suparna@in.ibm.com, sct@redhat.com, mason@suse.com,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org,
kenneth.w.chen@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
sonny@burdell.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][WIP] DIO simplification and AIO-DIO stability
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:13:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060223171336.7b412efc.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1140741566.22756.170.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com>
Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> I am still trying to understand the whole proposal to give you better
> feedback. But, my gut feeling is - its not going to be any more simpler
> than what we have today :(
>
Yes, that's my general reaction as well. That code's solving a complex and
messy problem, so it got complex and messy.
Of course, a reimplementation might certainly end up faster, cleaner,
better. A throw-away-and-reimplement exercise often has that result, but
mainly because on the second time the reimplementors understand the full
scope of the problem at the outset rather than at the end. So this time
around, as you imply, we'd need to get a full problem description and set
of testcases collected.
That code does a _lot_ of stuff. Fortunately, It's basically all in
direct-io.c and that file exports a single function. So it's possible that
a reimplmentation could tick along alongside the existing implementation and
ideally, it's just a matter of changing one entry in each filesystem's a_ops.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-24 1:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-23 7:29 [RFC][WIP] DIO simplification and AIO-DIO stability Suparna Bhattacharya
2006-02-23 19:12 ` Wendy Cheng
2006-02-24 11:53 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2006-02-24 15:51 ` Wendy Cheng
2006-02-24 0:39 ` Badari Pulavarty
2006-02-24 1:13 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2006-02-24 11:25 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2006-02-24 1:01 ` Chris Mason
2006-02-24 9:37 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2006-02-24 1:21 ` Zach Brown
2006-02-24 11:12 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2006-02-24 18:09 ` Badari Pulavarty
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=20060223171336.7b412efc.akpm@osdl.org \
--to=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-aio@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mason@suse.com \
--cc=pbadari@us.ibm.com \
--cc=sct@redhat.com \
--cc=sonny@burdell.org \
--cc=suparna@in.ibm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).