On 09/07/2020 16:53, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:49:51PM +0300, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 09/07/2020 16:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:37:59PM +0300, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
Kanchan, could you take a look if you can hide it in req->cflags?
>>>
>
On 7/9/20 7:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:10:36PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:17:05AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> I really don't like this series at all. If saves a single pointer
>>> but introduces a complicated machinery that
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:49:51PM +0300, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 09/07/2020 16:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:37:59PM +0300, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >> Kanchan, could you take a look if you can hide it in req->cflags?
> >
> > No, that's not what cflags are for. And b
On 7/9/20 7:32 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:10:36PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:17:05AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I really don't like this series at all. If sa
On 09/07/2020 16:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:37:59PM +0300, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 09/07/2020 16:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:10:36PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:17:05AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:37:59PM +0300, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 09/07/2020 16:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:10:36PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:17:05AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>> I really don't like this series at all.
On 09/07/2020 16:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:10:36PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:17:05AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> I really don't like this series at all. If saves a single pointer
>>> but introduces a complicated machinery tha
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:10:36PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:17:05AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > I really don't like this series at all. If saves a single pointer
> > > but introduces a
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:10:36PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:17:05AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I really don't like this series at all. If saves a single pointer
> > but introduces a complicated machinery that just doesn't follow any
> > natural flow. And
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:17:05AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I really don't like this series at all. If saves a single pointer
> but introduces a complicated machinery that just doesn't follow any
> natural flow. And there doesn't seem to be any good reason for it to
> start with.
Jens d
I really don't like this series at all. If saves a single pointer
but introduces a complicated machinery that just doesn't follow any
natural flow. And there doesn't seem to be any good reason for it to
start with.
On 7/8/20 4:26 PM, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> Save a pointer in the kiocb by using a few bits in ki_flags to index
> a table of completion functions.
I ran polled and regular IO testing through io_uring, which exercises
both completions that we have in there, and it works just fine for
me.
Save a pointer in the kiocb by using a few bits in ki_flags to index
a table of completion functions.
Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) (2):
fs: Abstract calling the kiocb completion function
fs: Remove kiocb->ki_complete
crypto/af_alg.c| 2 +-
drivers/block/loop.c |
13 matches
Mail list logo
