* 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).