Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-10 Thread Kent Overstreet
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 07:03:56AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:37:00PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel. > > > > > > I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up > > > send it o

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-10 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:20:51PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > > I sympathize, but the reality is that the current infrastructure > is very bad and no one is using it. > > It's not like we're getting rid of the syscall. I'll be behaving > exactly as it does today: returning the error code that in

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-10 Thread Zach Brown
> And maybe the current way of doing things isn't the best way. But it > would be nice if we didn't completely give up on the functionality of > aio_cancel. I sympathize, but the reality is that the current infrastructure is very bad and no one is using it. It's not like we're getting rid of the

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-10 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:37:00PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel. > > > > I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up > > send it out, I'll cc: you. > > Even better :) > > I've been looking at aio locki

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-09 Thread Kent Overstreet
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 11:26:25AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:39:17PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > Minor refactoring, to get rid of some duplicated code > > Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel. > > I have an RFC patch series that tears

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-09 Thread Zach Brown
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:39:17PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > Minor refactoring, to get rid of some duplicated code Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel. I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up send it out, I'll cc: you. - z -- To uns

[PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-08 Thread Kent Overstreet
Minor refactoring, to get rid of some duplicated code Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet --- fs/aio.c | 72 ++ 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/aio.c b/fs/aio.c index 1ad2d97..95419c4 100644 --- a/fs/aio.