On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 18:57 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:08:52PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > We never had support for multiple iovecs in O_DIRECT, but were passing
> > around a single iovec entry deep into code that couldn't care less.
>
> anthing that moves from iovecs back to plain buffers is counterproductive.
> The plan is that every fullblown fs will only deal with iovecs, onlt drivers
> and synthetic filesystems will implement the plain buffers.
You need to do more than just add an iovec argument to
nfs_file_direct_read()/nfs_file_direct_write() if you want to achieve
this. The new call interface actually just clarifies something that was
implicit in the old one.
As I said in my other posting, I believe Chuck's changes are relatively
orthogonal to what you want to do: they neither make the low-level
plumbing better or worse for readv()/writev().
We'd be happy to work with you in the run-up to 2.6.18 to add
multi-segment support for the existing patchsets. It makes more sense to
me to append that functionality to the existing patchsets rather than
trigger a complete rewrite (and thus have a sh_tload more code to
retest).
Cheers,
Trond
-
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]
