From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE727F51 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 00:57:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF418F8040 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 22:57:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id SiW6ZyZi4vR0wB3k (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 22:57:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 22:57:28 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] support appending AIO writes Message-ID: <20140205065728.GA30899@infradead.org> References: <20140204172402.380571745@bombadil.infradead.org> <20140204222901.GE13997@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140204222901.GE13997@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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Sergey Meirovich , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:29:01AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > The patches look sane. Does the dio change conflict with the > work Al is doing right now of the direct IO path, or will > marshalling that part of the change through the XFS tree be fine? I've not seen any changes in that area in Al's trees. That being said I don't think this little flag should cause any major problems as we'll have to pass the flags argument in some form of direct I/O method for all the other quirks we have. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs