[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45A3B529.80402@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:30:49 -0500
From: Peter Staubach <staubach@...hat.com>
To: Hua Zhong <hzhong@...il.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hugh@...itas.com, hch@...radead.com,
kenneth.w.chen@...el.com, akpm@...l.org, torvalds@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] support O_DIRECT in tmpfs/ramfs
Hua Zhong wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A while ago there was a discussion about supporting direct-io on tmpfs.
>
> Here is a simple patch that does it.
>
> 1. A new fs flag FS_RAM_BASED is added and the O_DIRECT flag is ignored
> if this flag is set (suggestions on a better name?)
>
> 2. Specify FS_RAM_BASED for tmpfs and ramfs.
>
> 3. When EINVAL is returned only a fput is done. I changed it to go
> through cleanup_all. But there is still a cleanup problem:
>
> If a new file is created and then EINVAL is returned due to O_DIRECT,
> the file is still left on the disk. I am not exactly sure how to fix
> it other than adding another fs flag so we could check O_DIRECT
> support at a much earlier stage. Comments on how to fix it?
This would seem to create two different sets of O_DIRECT semantics,
wouldn't it? I think that it would be possible to develop an application
using one of these FS_RAM_BASED file systems as the testbed, but then be
surprised when the application failed to work on other file systems such
as ext3.
ps
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists