[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131015171850.GA26277@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:18:50 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Maxim V. Patlasov" <mpatlasov@...allels.com>,
Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>, linux-aio@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 00/33] loop: Issue O_DIRECT aio using bio_vec
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:14:47PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > While I agree that getting that would be useful it is something that has
> > nothing to do with issueing aio from kernel space and holding this
> > patchset hostage for something you'd like to see but that was
> > complicated enough that no one even tried it for many years seems
> > entirely unreasonable.
> >
> > If there are any other issues left that I have missed it would be nice
> > to get a pointer to it, or a quick brief.
>
> The item I was refering to is to removing the opcodes used for in-kernel
> purposes from out of the range that the userland accessible opcodes can
> reach. That is, put them above the 16 bit limit for userspace opcodes.
> There is absolutely no reason to expose kernel internal opcodes via the
> userspace exported includes. It's a simple and reasonable change, and I
> see no reason for Dave not to make that modification. Until that is
> done, I will nak the changes.
Oh, missed that. I totally agree that it needs to be done.
Dave, will you have time to do it soon or should I look into it myself?
--
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