[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B9FEBB0.4020300@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:36:00 +0300
From: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
CC: linux-aio@...ck.org, Linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: aio: compat_ioctl issue?
Jeff Moyer wrote:
[]
> Sorry for taking so long on this. I only tested the case where niovs >
> fast_segs, and I missed an obvious thing: I didn't assign the return
> pointer to the proper iovec.
There's no need to be sorry really. Because, well, the whole thing isn't
quite useful anyway: running proper 64bit code is preferable ;)
I actually tried the thing, running a guest right now, which in turn is
running a quick benchmark and appears to perform quite good at it too.
> So, this patch should get you going.
Well, I already switched to 64bit kvm binary for my case, and actually
that one makes alot more sense anyway: there's no conversion like this
needed, and no 32<=>64bit mode switching either. (Actually 32bit code
in this my case is slower elsewhere too).
By the way, how about the case when we've several {write,read}v in the
iocb array? Will each use the same fast_segs array from the beginning,
overwriting data of previous iocb element? :) Just... curious :)
Thank you for your support!
You can add my
Tested-By: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
if you want. Thanks!
/mjt
--
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