[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55D576BE.5040207@nod.at>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:42:06 +0200
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
dedekind1@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ubifs: Allow O_DIRECT
Yang, (Sorry if I've used your last name lately)
Am 20.08.2015 um 05:00 schrieb Dongsheng Yang:
> On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications
>> blindly use the O_DIRECT flag.
>> Instead of failing upon open() we can do better and fall back
>> to buffered IO.
>
> Hmmmm, to be honest, I am not sure we have to do it as Dave
> suggested. I think that's just a work-around for current fstests.
>
> IMHO, perform a buffered IO when user request direct IO without
> any warning sounds not a good idea. Maybe adding a warning would
> make it better.
Well, how would you inform the user?
A printk() to dmesg is useless are the vast majority of open()
callers do not check dmesg... :)
Major filesystems implement ->direct_IO these days and having
a "return 0"-stub seems to be legit.
For example exofs does too. So, I really don't consider it a work around.
> I think we need more discussion about AIO&DIO in ubifs, and actually
> I have a plan for it. But I have not listed the all cons and pros of
> it so far.
Sure, having a real ->direct_IO would be be best solution.
My patch won't block this.
Thanks,
//richard
--
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