From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id oBKBRqfF115620 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 05:27:53 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 09A82146C9C3 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:29:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id rmXvBQlXISZk3Cr7 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:29:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 06:29:47 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] xfs: split direct IO write path from xfs_file_aio_write Message-ID: <20101220112947.GC6881@infradead.org> References: <1292376208-16282-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1292376208-16282-5-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20101216120629.GC20445@infradead.org> <20101217073125.GE5193@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101217073125.GE5193@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 06:31:25PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Speaking of that, shouldn't xfs_file_aio_read also take the iolock > > exclusive during the page invalidation and then demote it, just like > > the write case? The above helpers would enforce that nicely. > > Probably, though it might be best to leave that to another cleanup > series. I'll see how much perturbation of the read path it makes.... Yes, it should be a separate patch for sure. If you prefer another series that's fine with me, too. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs