[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170910231519.GH5426@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 00:15:19 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: iov_iter_pipe warning.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:07:23AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> BTW, another problem I see there is that iomap_dio_actor() should *NOT*
> assume that do-while loop in there will always manage to shove 'length'
> bytes out in case of success. That is simply not true for pipe-backed
> destination. And I'm not sure if outright failures halfway through
> are handled correctly. What does it need a copy of dio->submit.iter for,
> anyway? Why not work with dio->submit.iter directly?
I mean, if it's just a matter of iov_iter_truncate() to be undone in
the end, that's not hard to do - iov_iter_reexpand() is there. Or is there
something more subtle in the play?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists