On Tue 09-05-17 07:22:17, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
>
> Return EAGAIN if any of the following checks fail for direct I/O:
> + i_rwsem is lockable
> + Writing beyond end of file (will trigger allocation)
> + Blocks are not allocated at the write location
>
> Signed-
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
Return EAGAIN if any of the following checks fail for direct I/O:
+ i_rwsem is lockable
+ Writing beyond end of file (will trigger allocation)
+ Blocks are not allocated at the write location
Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues
---
fs/ext4/file.c | 20 +++
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
Return EAGAIN if any of the following checks fail for direct I/O:
+ i_rwsem is lockable
+ Writing beyond end of file (will trigger allocation)
+ Blocks are not allocated at the write location
Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues
---
fs/ext4/file.c | 20 +++
On Mon 10-04-17 07:39:43, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 02:37:50PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > I don't understand here. Do you want that all filesystems support NOWAIT
> > direct IO?
>
> No. Per-file_system_type is way to coarse grained. All feature flag
> needs to be per-fil
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 02:37:50PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> I don't understand here. Do you want that all filesystems support NOWAIT
> direct IO?
No. Per-file_system_type is way to coarse grained. All feature flag
needs to be per-file_operation at least for cases like ext4 with our
without exten
On Mon 10-04-17 00:45:39, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 01:41:09PM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > I am working on incorporating RWF_* flags. However, I am not sure how
> > RWF_* flags would get rid of FS_NOWAIT/FS_NOWAIT_IO. Since most of
> > "blocking" information is with
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 01:41:09PM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> I am working on incorporating RWF_* flags. However, I am not sure how
> RWF_* flags would get rid of FS_NOWAIT/FS_NOWAIT_IO. Since most of
> "blocking" information is with the filesystem, it is a per-filesystem
> flag to block out
On 04/04/2017 03:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:58:53AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>> FS_NOWAIT looks a bit too generic given these are filesystem feature flags.
>> Can we call it FS_NOWAIT_IO?
>
> It's way to generic as it's a feature of the particular file_operations
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:58:53AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> FS_NOWAIT looks a bit too generic given these are filesystem feature flags.
> Can we call it FS_NOWAIT_IO?
It's way to generic as it's a feature of the particular file_operations
instance. But once we switch to using RWF_* we can just th
On Mon 03-04-17 13:53:05, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
>
> Return EAGAIN if any of the following checks fail for direct I/O:
> + i_rwsem is lockable
> + Writing beyond end of file (will trigger allocation)
> + Blocks are not allocated at the write location
Patches seem t
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
Return EAGAIN if any of the following checks fail for direct I/O:
+ i_rwsem is lockable
+ Writing beyond end of file (will trigger allocation)
+ Blocks are not allocated at the write location
---
fs/ext4/file.c | 48 +++-
fs
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
Return EAGAIN if any of the following checks fail for direct I/O:
+ i_rwsem is lockable
+ Writing beyond end of file (will trigger allocation)
+ Blocks are not allocated at the write location
Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues
---
fs/ext4/file.c | 48 ++
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues
Return EAGAIN if any of the following checks fail for direct I/O:
+ i_rwsem is lockable
+ Writing beyond end of file (will trigger allocation)
+ Blocks are not allocated at the write location
Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues
---
fs/ext4/file.c | 53 ++
13 matches
Mail list logo
