From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.143]:5914 "EHLO ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S946398AbcJaUZ0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:25:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:25:21 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Linus Torvalds , Al Viro , Jan Kara , Dmitry Monakhov , Jeff Moyer , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: remove the never implemented aio_fsync file operation Message-ID: <20161031202521.GN22126@dastard> References: <1477845724-27586-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1477845724-27586-3-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20161030232331.GJ22126@dastard> <20161031130754.GA9853@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161031130754.GA9853@lst.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 02:07:54PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:23:31AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > This doesn't belong in this patchset. > > It does. I can't fix up the calling conventions for a methods that > was never implemented. That sounds like a problem with your fix - it should work regardless of whether a valid/implemented AIO function is called or not, right? There's no difference between an invalid command, IOCB_CMD_FSYNC where ->aio_fsync() is null, or some supported command that immediately returns -EIO, the end result should be the same... > > Regardless, can we just implement the damned thing rather than > > removing it? Plenty of people have asked for it and they still want > > this functionality. I've sent a couple of different prototypes that > > worked but got bikeshedded to death, and IIRC Ben also tried to get > > it implemented but that went nowhere because other parts of his > > patchset got bikeshedded to death. > > > > If nothing else, just let me implement it in XFS like I did the > > first time so when all the bikshedding stops we can convert it to > > the One True AIO Interface that is decided on. > > I'm not going to complain about a proper implementation, but right now > we don't have any, and I'm not even sure the method signature is > all that suitable. E.g. for the in-kernel users we'd really want a > ranged fsync like the normal fsync anyway. You mean like this version I posted a year ago: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/29/517 Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com