[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikwPL8-WefVIMF1ldTZpWVHvS1Lbh4YB8MZ4eu0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 18:47:36 -0700
From: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@...efedyk.com>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] direct-io: do not merge logically non-contiguous
requests
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com> wrote:
> Btrfs cannot handle having logically non-contiguous requests submitted. For
> example if you have
>
> Logical: [0-4095][HOLE][8192-12287]
> Physical: [0-4095] [4096-8191]
>
> Normally the DIO code would put these into the same BIO's. The problem is we
> need to know exactly what offset is associated with what BIO so we can do our
> checksumming and unlocking properly, so putting them in the same BIO doesn't
> work. So add another check where we submit the current BIO if the physical
> blocks are not contigous OR the logical blocks are not contiguous.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
> ---
>
> V1->V2
> -Be more verbose in the in-code comment
>
> fs/direct-io.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
Btrfs has been pretty much self-contained (working well compiled
against 2.6.32 for example). Is there a way that this wouldn't just
start silently breaking for people compiling the latest btrfs with
dkms against older kernels?
--
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