From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com [209.85.212.171]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3646B0032 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:43:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id bs8so16085916wib.4 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 09:43:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fb12si36819459wjc.160.2015.01.12.09.43.02 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Jan 2015 09:43:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:42:58 +0100 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] xfs: truncate vs page fault IO exclusion Message-ID: <20150112174258.GN4468@quack.suse.cz> References: <1420669543-8093-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20150108122448.GA18034@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150108122448.GA18034@infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Dave Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Thu 08-01-15 04:24:48, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > This patchset passes xfstests and various benchmarks and stress > > workloads, so the real question is now: > > > > What have I missed? > > > > Comments, thoughts, flames? > > Why is this done in XFS and not in generic code? I was also thinking about this. In the end I decided not to propose this since the new rw-lock would grow struct inode and is actually necessary only for filesystems implementing hole punching AFAICS. And that isn't supported by that many filesystems. So fs private implementation which isn't that complicated looked like a reasonable solution to me... Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR -- 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