linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v5 07/12] ext4: introduce direct I/O read using iomap infrastructure

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: <20191022015834.GD5092@athena.bobrowski.net>
Date:   Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:58:34 +1100
From:   Matthew Bobrowski <mbobrowski@...browski.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        hch@...radead.org, david@...morbit.com, darrick.wong@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/12] ext4: introduce direct I/O read using iomap
 infrastructure

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:41:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 21-10-19 20:18:37, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> > This patch introduces a new direct I/O read path which makes use of
> > the iomap infrastructure.
> > 
> > The new function ext4_do_read_iter() is responsible for calling into
> > the iomap infrastructure via iomap_dio_rw(). If the read operation
> > performed on the inode is not supported, which is checked via
> > ext4_dio_supported(), then we simply fallback and complete the I/O
> > using buffered I/O.
> > 
> > Existing direct I/O read code path has been removed, as it is no
> > longer required.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Bobrowski <mbobrowski@...browski.org>
> 
> Looks good to me. You can add:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> 
> BTW, I think I gave you my Reviewed-by tag for this patch also last time
> and this patch didn't change since then. You can just include the tag in
> your posting in that case.

The lock pattern was dropped here, so I thought I'd just have you
review it again to be sure that you didn't object. But anyway, thank
you!

--<M>--