* Motion to nuke FS_DIRECTIO_FL
[not found] ` <E1520682-CD9F-445E-AF33-D5FCDABA1FF8@sun.com>
@ 2010-01-25 8:06 ` tytso
2010-01-25 9:31 ` Steven Whitehouse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: tytso @ 2010-01-25 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Dilger; +Cc: linux-ext4, Steven Whitehouse, linux-fsdevel
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:18:47PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> It doesn't seem that ext2/3/4 are using the 0x00100000 value itself,
> but it seems the VFS is using this value for FS_DIRECTIO_FL. Should
> we reserve this in the ext4 flags also, to avoid collisions? I'm
> not sure what that flag is for, possibly to force all IO to the file
> to be uncached?
Hmm, absolutely nothing seems to use FS_DIRECTIO_FL; it looks like it
was introduced by GFS2 in commit 128e5eba in 2006 and then dropped in
commit c9f6a6bb in 2008, but we never killed the FS_DIRECTIO_FL flag
itself in include/linux/fs.h.
The summary line for c9f6a6bb is a bit amusing:
[GFS2] Remove support for unused and pointless flag
Heh.
Sounds like we should just kill it. Any objections?
- Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Motion to nuke FS_DIRECTIO_FL
2010-01-25 8:06 ` Motion to nuke FS_DIRECTIO_FL tytso
@ 2010-01-25 9:31 ` Steven Whitehouse
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Steven Whitehouse @ 2010-01-25 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tytso; +Cc: Andreas Dilger, linux-ext4, linux-fsdevel
Hi,
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 03:06 -0500, tytso@mit.edu wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:18:47PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> >
> > It doesn't seem that ext2/3/4 are using the 0x00100000 value itself,
> > but it seems the VFS is using this value for FS_DIRECTIO_FL. Should
> > we reserve this in the ext4 flags also, to avoid collisions? I'm
> > not sure what that flag is for, possibly to force all IO to the file
> > to be uncached?
>
> Hmm, absolutely nothing seems to use FS_DIRECTIO_FL; it looks like it
> was introduced by GFS2 in commit 128e5eba in 2006 and then dropped in
> commit c9f6a6bb in 2008, but we never killed the FS_DIRECTIO_FL flag
> itself in include/linux/fs.h.
>
> The summary line for c9f6a6bb is a bit amusing:
>
> [GFS2] Remove support for unused and pointless flag
>
> Heh.
>
> Sounds like we should just kill it. Any objections?
>
> - Ted
No. Sounds good to me. It was never used with GFS2 and it a left-over
from GFS1 which had a flag allowing all "normal" I/O to be turned into
O_DIRECT I/O depending on an inode flag. The idea failed due to
alignment restrictions of course and nobody actually used it,
Steve.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-01-25 9:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20090906092546.GU4197@webber.adilger.int>
[not found] ` <20100124194839.GB4372@thunk.org>
[not found] ` <E1520682-CD9F-445E-AF33-D5FCDABA1FF8@sun.com>
2010-01-25 8:06 ` Motion to nuke FS_DIRECTIO_FL tytso
2010-01-25 9:31 ` Steven Whitehouse
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).