On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 07:27:52AM +0200, DervishD wrote:
> ...
> Are the differences too large?
Yep.
> I know that this change would be intrusive and probably large,
> but IMHO is a quite important bug, because it prevents apps to
> selectively disable O_DIRECT (the flag is accepted by open(), so
> there's no reason the app should bother about which caused the
> read()/write() failures. In fact, is very difficult to know that
> those failures are caused by partial/buggy support of O_DIRECT flag).
You could open for direct, do a direct read, and see if it fails.
If it fails, clear O_DIRECT on the fd via fcntl(F_SETFL) then do
regular buffered IO instead... a bit hacky, but should work fine
I think.
cheers.
--
Nathan
-
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/
- References:
- O_DIRECT, ext3fs, kernel 2.4.32... again
- Re: O_DIRECT, ext3fs, kernel 2.4.32... again
- Re: O_DIRECT, ext3fs, kernel 2.4.32... again
- Re: O_DIRECT, ext3fs, kernel 2.4.32... again
- Re: O_DIRECT, ext3fs, kernel 2.4.32... again
- Re: O_DIRECT, ext3fs, kernel 2.4.32... again
- Re: O_DIRECT, ext3fs, kernel 2.4.32... again
[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]