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 waitqueue in
> > the kiocb always guaranteed to be the same? Now that all pagecache
>
> We don't have have the kiocb available to this routine. Using current->io_wait
> avoids the need to pass the iocb down to deeper levels just for the sync vs
> async checks, also allowing such routines to be shared by other code which
> does not use iocbs (e.g. generic_file_sendfile->do_generic_file_read
> ->do_generic_mapping_read) without having to set up dummy iocbs.
We really want to switch senfile to kiocbs btw, - for one thing to
allow an aio_sendfile implementation and second to make it more common
to all the other I/O path code so we can avoid special cases in the
fs code So I'm not convinced by that argument. But again we don't
need to put the io_wait removal into your patchkit. I'll try to
hack on it once I'll get a little spare time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
