| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAABAsM4jMcox1emR1nSxORUOPNMDYmCcmMD4YymJ9R_BM_UU4w@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 07:49:20 -0500 From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com> To: Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] nfs: follow direct I/O write locking convention On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com> wrote: > The generic callers of direct_IO lock i_mutex before doing a write. NFS > doesn't use the generic write code, so it doesn't follow this > convention. This is now a problem because the interface introduced for > swap-over-NFS calls direct_IO for a write without holding i_mutex, but > other implementations of direct_IO will expect to have it locked. I really don't care much about swap-over-NFS performance; that's a niche usage at best. I _do_ care about O_DIRECT performance, and the ability to run multiple WRITE calls in parallel. IOW: Patch NACKed... Please find another solution. Trond -- 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