From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61026200B2 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 05:55:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 10:55:37 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Btrfs: add basic DIO read support Message-ID: <20100507095537.GD19699@shareable.org> References: <20100506190101.GD13974@dhcp231-156.rdu.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100506190101.GD13974@dhcp231-156.rdu.redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Josef Bacik Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Josef Bacik wrote: > 3) Lock the entire range during DIO. I originally had it so we would lock the > extents as get_block was called, and then unlock them as the endio function was > called, which worked great, but if we ever had an error in the submit_io hook, > we could have locked an extent that would never be submitted for IO, so we > wouldn't be able to unlock it, so this solution fixed that problem and made it a > bit cleaner. Does this prevent concurrent DIOs to overlapping or nearby ranges? Thanks, -- Jamie -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org