On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 12:00:26PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:40:15PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > We only need to communicate two bits of information to the direct I/O
> > completion handler:
> >
> > (1) do we need to convert any unwritten extents in the range
> > (2) do we need to check if we need to update the inode size based
> > on the range passed to the completion handler
> >
> > We can use the private data passed to the get_block handler and the
> > completion handler as a simple bitmask to communicate this information
> > instead of the current complicated infrastructure reusing the ioends
> > from the buffer I/O path, and thus avoiding a memory allocation and
> > a context switch for any non-trivial direct write. As a nice side
> > effect we also decouple the direct I/O path implementation from that
> > of the buffered I/O path.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This change is now dependent on the preceeding direct IO API
> changes. Do I a) take the DIO API change through the XFS tree, or
> b) use the older version of the patch that didn't have this
> dependency and let somebody else deal with the API change and merge
> issues?
>
> I'm happy to take the DIO API change through the XFS tree, if that's
> the fastest/easiest way to get the necessary DIO subsystem fixes
> into the mainline tree for XFS. As such, the for-next tree that I'm
> building right now will include the DIO API change patch....
Right now this series is in a stable branch in the XFS tree:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dgc/linux-xfs.git xfs-dio-fix-4.6
If you want to push it through some other tree, please let me know
when/where it is committed so I can rebuild the XFS for-next branch
appropriately from a stable commit/branch...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|