Re: [PATCH 4/6] fs: introduce RWF_DIRECT to allow using O_DIRECT on a per-IO basis

Chuck Lever
2025-06-11T14:18:09Z

On 6/11/25 2:58 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 04:57:35PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>> Avoids the need to open code do_iter_readv_writev() purely to request
>> that a sync iocb make use of IOCB_DIRECT.
>>
>> Care was taken to preserve the long-established value for IOCB_DIRECT
>> (1 << 17) when introducing RWF_DIRECT.
>
> What is the problem with using vfs_iocb_iter_read instead of
> vfs_iter_read and passing the iocb directly?

Christoph, are you suggesting that nfsd_iter_read() should always
call vfs_iocb_iter_read() instead of vfs_iter_read()? That might be
a nice clean up in general.

--
Chuck Lever