[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200626085846.GA24962@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 09:58:46 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, bcrl@...ck.org,
asml.silence@...il.com, Damien.LeMoal@....com, hch@...radead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, mb@...htnvm.io,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
selvakuma.s1@...sung.com, nj.shetty@...sung.com,
javier.gonz@...sung.com, Arnav Dawn <a.dawn@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] fs,block: Introduce RWF_ZONE_APPEND and handling
in direct IO path
To restate my previous NAK:
A low-level protocol detail like RWF_ZONE_APPEND has absolutely no
business being exposed in the Linux file system interface.
And as mentioned before I think the idea of returning the actual
position written for O_APPEND writes totally makes sense, and actually
is generalizable to all files. Together with zonefs that gives you a
perfect interface for zone append.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:45:48PM +0530, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> Introduce RWF_ZONE_APPEND flag to represent zone-append.
And no one but us select few even know what zone append is, nevermind
what the detailed semantics are. If you add a userspace API you need
to very clearly document the semantics inluding errors and corner cases.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists