Re: interims VFS queue

[Tao Ma <tm@tao.ma>]

On 10/29/2011 06:58 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 03:09:36PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> 1: What happened with Andi's "dio: optimize cache misses in the
>>    submission path"?  (Against which I have checkpatch fixes and
>>    #include linux/prefetch.h, btw)
> 
> It has mostly been merged, including all whitespace fixes and some
> folding.  What is missing is the last two patchees because I don't
> want to put the request_queue caching in until the remaining
> lifetime issues for the request queue are sorted out, and the last
> patch (which would need prefetch.h) depends on it.
> 
>>
>> 2: I'm still sitting on Andy Whitcroft's "readlinkat: ensure we
>>    return ENOENT for the empty pathname for normal lookups" and its
>>    fixup.  I'd marked this as needed-in-3.1.  Help.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
>> Subject: readlinkat: ensure we return ENOENT for the empty pathname for normal lookups
>>
>> Since the commit below which added O_PATH support to the *at() calls, the
>> error return for readlink/readlinkat for the empty pathname has switched
>> from ENOENT to EINVAL:
> 
> The fix is defintively required, I'll look over it in a bit more detail
> and will push it with the next round.
> 
>>
>> 3: I'm also sitting on Hans Verkuil's "poll: add
>>    poll_requested_events() function".  This is being merged via the v4l
>>    tree, based on looks-ok-to-akpm.  AFAIK nobody else has looked at
>>    it.  This should be in linux-next via the v4l tree by now, but it
>>    isn't, so something might have gone wrong.
> 
> That was my assumption, too. 
> 
>>
>> 4: I'm still sitting on Steve Rago's "fcntl(F_SETFL): allow setting
>>    of O_SYNC".  I have a comment here that you said it "needs an
>>    audit".  AFAIK nothing has happened.  Should I toss it?
> 
> This also needs all the other bits I mentioned during review.
> 
>> 5: Tao Ma's "fs/direct-io.c: calculate fs_count correctly in
>>    get_more_blocks()" was missed and needs rework as a result of this
>>    merge.  Here's what I now have.  It compiles.
> 
> Tao, can you please resend it against current Linus' tree after making
> sure the upated version is still fine?
OK, I will try to rebase it and do some test against it.

Thanks.
Tao