[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5517C22D.8040003@plexistor.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 12:13:17 +0300
From: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>
To: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, msharbiani@...pensource.com
Subject: Re: Should implementations of ->direct_access be allowed to sleep?
On 03/29/2015 11:02 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 03/26/2015 09:32 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
<>
> I think that ->direct_access should not be any different then
> any other block-device access, ie allow to sleep.
>
BTW: Matthew you yourself have said that after a page-load of memcpy
a user should call sched otherwise bad things will happen to the system
you even commented so on one of my patches when you thought I was
allowing a single memcpy bigger than a page.
So if the user *must* call sched after a call to ->direct_access that
is a "sleep" No?
Thanks
Boaz
--
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