Re: [FSAIO][PATCH 7/8] Filesystem AIO read

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 08:48:30PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> Yes, we can do that -- how about aio_restarted() as an alternate name ?

Sounds fine to me.

> > Pluse possible naming updates discussed in the last mail.  Also do we
> > really need to pass current->io_wait here?  Isn't the waitqueue in
> > the kiocb always guaranteed to be the same?  Now that all pagecache
> 
> We don't have have the kiocb available to this routine. Using current->io_wait
> avoids the need to pass the iocb down to deeper levels just for the sync vs
> async checks, also allowing such routines to be shared by other code which
> does not use iocbs (e.g. generic_file_sendfile->do_generic_file_read
> ->do_generic_mapping_read) without having to set up dummy iocbs.

We really want to switch senfile to kiocbs btw, - for one thing to
allow an aio_sendfile implementation and second to make it more common
to all the other I/O path code so we can avoid special cases in the
fs code  So I'm not convinced by that argument.  But again we don't
need to put the io_wait removal into your patchkit.  I'll try to
hack on it once I'll get a little spare time.