linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/3] ext4: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous direct I/O requests

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120206165836.GJ6890@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:58:36 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ext4: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous
 direct I/O requests

On Mon 06-02-12 11:20:29, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
> 
> >> +	/* workqueue for aio+dio+o_sync disk cache flushing */
> >> +	struct workqueue_struct *aio_dio_flush_wq;
> >> +
> >   Hmm, looking at the patch I'm wondering why did you introduce the new
> > workqueue? It seems dio_unwritten_wq would be enough? You just need to
> > rename it to something more appropriate ;)
> 
> I used a new workqueue as the operations are blocking, and I didn't want
> to hold up other progress.  If you think re-using the unwritten_wq is
> the right thing to do, I'm happy to comply.
  Ah, ok. Thinking about it, it's probably better to use a separate work
queue then.

								Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html