[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1440070300.31419.202.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:31:40 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ubifs: Allow O_DIRECT
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 11:00 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Artem, what's your opinion?
Yes, this is my worry too.
Basically, we need to see what is the "common practice" here, and
follow it. This requires a small research. What would be the most
popular Linux FS which does not support direct I/O? Can we check what
it does?
Artem.
--
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