Re: [PATCH] support O_DIRECT in tmpfs/ramfs

[Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com>]

Hua Zhong wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A while ago there was a discussion about supporting direct-io on tmpfs.
>
> Here is a simple patch that does it.
>
> 1. A new fs flag FS_RAM_BASED is added and the O_DIRECT flag is ignored
>    if this flag is set (suggestions on a better name?)
>
> 2. Specify FS_RAM_BASED for tmpfs and ramfs.
>
> 3. When EINVAL is returned only a fput is done. I changed it to go
>    through cleanup_all. But there is still a cleanup problem:
>
>   If a new file is created and then EINVAL is returned due to O_DIRECT,
>   the file is still left on the disk. I am not exactly sure how to fix
>   it other than adding another fs flag so we could check O_DIRECT
>   support at a much earlier stage. Comments on how to fix it?

This would seem to create two different sets of O_DIRECT semantics,
wouldn't it?  I think that it would be possible to develop an application
using one of these FS_RAM_BASED file systems as the testbed, but then be
surprised when the application failed to work on other file systems such
as ext3.

      ps
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/