On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:05:38PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:30:10PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > do_blockdev_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode, > > struct block_device *bdev, struct iov_iter *iter, > > get_block_t get_block, dio_iodone_t end_io, > > - dio_submit_t submit_io, int flags) > > + dio_submit_t submit_io, int flags, void *private) > > Oh, dear... That's what, 9 arguments? I agree that the hack in question > is obscene, but so is this ;-/
So looking at these one by one, obviously needed: - iocb - inode - iter bdev is almost always inode->i_sb->s_bdev, except for Btrfs :( These could _maybe_ go in struct kiocb: - flags could maybe be folded into ki_flags - private could maybe go in iocb->private, but I haven't yet read through to figure out if we're already using iocb->private for direct I/O That leaves the callbacks, get_block, end_io, and submit_io. Perhaps we can add those to inode_operations? Thoughts? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
