On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 08:48:30PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> Yes, we can do that -- how about aio_restarted() as an alternate name ?
Sounds fine to me.
> > Pluse possible naming updates discussed in the last mail. Also do we
> > really need to pass current->io_wait here? Isn't the wa
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:22:07 +0100 (MET) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Dec 28 2006 11:57, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> >> +
> >> + if ((error = __lock_page(page, current->io_wait))) {
> >> + goto readpage_error;
> >> + }
> >
> >This should be
> >
> >
On Dec 28 2006 11:57, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>> +
>> +if ((error = __lock_page(page, current->io_wait))) {
>> +goto readpage_error;
>> +}
>
>This should be
>
> error = __lock_page(page, current->io_wait);
> if (error)
>
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 11:57:47AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > + if (in_aio()) {
> > + /* Avoid repeat readahead */
> > + if (kiocbTryRestart(io_wait_to_kiocb(current->io_wait)))
> > + next_index = last_index;
> > + }
>
> Every place we use kiocbTr
> Pluse possible naming updates discussed in the last mail. Also do we
> really need to pass current->io_wait here? Isn't the waitqueue in
> the kiocb always guaranteed to be the same? Now that all pagecache
> I/O goes through the ->aio_read/->aio_write routines I'd prefer to
> get rid of the ta
> + if (in_aio()) {
> + /* Avoid repeat readahead */
> + if (kiocbTryRestart(io_wait_to_kiocb(current->io_wait)))
> + next_index = last_index;
> + }
Every place we use kiocbTryRestart in this and the next patch it's in
this from, so we should add