[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50F9C6C6.1090702@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:03:50 -0600
From: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
CC: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>,
"Maxim V. Patlasov" <mpatlasov@...allels.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 17/30] fs: use read_iter and write_iter rather than
aio_read and aio_write
On 01/18/2013 03:26 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com> writes:
>
>> @@ -1315,10 +1317,10 @@ static ssize_t aio_rw_vect_retry(struct kiocb *iocb)
>>
>> if ((iocb->ki_opcode == IOCB_CMD_PREADV) ||
>> (iocb->ki_opcode == IOCB_CMD_PREAD)) {
>> - rw_op = file->f_op->aio_read;
>> + rw_op = do_aio_read;
>> opcode = IOCB_CMD_PREADV;
>> } else {
>> - rw_op = file->f_op->aio_write;
>> + rw_op = do_aio_read;
>> opcode = IOCB_CMD_PWRITEV;
>> }
>
> That wants to be rw_op = do_aio_write in the else clause. How did you
> test this patch set?
Yep, that's certainly a bug. I concentrated on testing on loop mounts,
running some fio and ltp testcases, but I'm at a loss to explain how
things seem to work as well as they do. Let's see how where fixing this
leads.
Thanks!
Shaggy
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
--
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