On Wed, Mar 29 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > 1) What are the consequences of doing
> >
> > if (f_op->splice_write)
> > f_op->splice_write(...);
> > else
> > generic_file_splice_write(...);
> >
> > to cause sys_splice() to default to supported?
>
> I'd actually much prefer a number of filesystems just adding he
> "generic_file_splice_write()" thing. If it works for them (and it usually
> will), it's a one-liner. And it won't do wrong things on filesystems that
> have special rules (inode re-validate for networked filesystems etc).
>
> > 2) Do you really have to test f_op itself for NULL? Is that a stealth
> > closed-file check or something? I would be surprised if f_op was ever really
> > NULL.
>
> Hmm.. I agree that f_op probably should never be NULL (a struct file with
> a NULL f_op is pretty useless), but it is a test that we historically have
> had. So it's probably best to keep for consistency, and if somebody wants
> to, they can clean up all the other tests too (in the read/write/lseek
> paths).
>
> I'm inclined to apply this patch (well, I'd like the fixed one). The whole
> splice() thing has been rolling around in my head for years, and the pipe
> support infrastructure for it has been around for over a year now in
> preparation for this.
>
> And the patch actually looks pretty clean to me.
Go ahead, as mentioned there are a few little extra fixes in the git
repo. The remaining changes I had in mind don't require anything
massive, so...
--
Jens Axboe
-
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]
