[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZGcvfLWAqmOLrnLj@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 01:12:44 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 09/32] tty, proc, kernfs, random: Use
direct_splice_read()
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 08:40:24AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> .fasync = random_fasync,
> .llseek = noop_llseek,
> - .splice_read = generic_file_splice_read,
> + .splice_read = direct_splice_read,
Pinging Al (and maybe Linus): is there any good reason to not simply
default to direct_splice_read if ->read_iter is implemented and
->splice_read is not once you remove ITER_PIPE? As long as we
assure direct_splice_read is simply a ->read_iter into newly
allocated pages I can't think of anything that would go wrong there.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists