[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120220210642.GC3538@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:06:42 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] block: implement bio_associate_current()
Hello,
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 02:16:04PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 09:01:28AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Yeah, AFAICS, if the cloning task hasn't issued IO before, CLONE_IO is
> > ignored.
>
> Will it make sense to try to allocate and attach io_context and then
> share it in copy_io()?
Yeap, that's probably what we should do on CLONE_IO.
> Well, you are planning to kill CLONE_IO altogether, so it does not
> make a difference.
Heh, I was just thinking about sending out a RFC patch. I mean,
CLONE_IO handling that severely broken and nobody noticing for such
long time doesn't look good, right?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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