[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170911125141.GJ5426@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 13:51:42 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
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
Subject: Re: iov_iter_pipe warning.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 05:07:57AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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?
> > --
>
> So that we only walk the pagetables and pin down the pages that
> we can actually use in this iteration.
Er... So why not simply do iov_iter_reexpand() in the end of segment with the
right argument? IDGI...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists