[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161101142534.GC17142@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:25:34 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: remove the never implemented aio_fsync file
operation
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 07:25:21AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> That sounds like a problem with your fix - it should work
> regardless of whether a valid/implemented AIO function is called
> or not, right? There's no difference between an invalid command,
> IOCB_CMD_FSYNC where ->aio_fsync() is null, or some supported
> command that immediately returns -EIO, the end result should
> be the same...
We would need the same increased file refcount if aio_fsync actually
was implemented using -EIOCBQUEUED returns. We wouldn't nessecarily need
it without that.
> > I'm not going to complain about a proper implementation, but right now
> > we don't have any, and I'm not even sure the method signature is
> > all that suitable. E.g. for the in-kernel users we'd really want a
> > ranged fsync like the normal fsync anyway.
>
> You mean like this version I posted a year ago:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/29/517
I'd love to see that one in - but it doesn't use the aio_fsync method
either..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists