On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:01:38AM +0100, Pieter Smith wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 04:32:51PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 07:28:10PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:36:37 -0800 > > > Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 09:30:40PM +0100, Pieter Smith wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:43:26AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 01:46:23PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > > > > > > > Truly removing sendfile/sendpage means that you can't even compile NFS > > > > > > > into the tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you mean the in-kernel nfsd (CONFIG_NFSD), that already has a large > > > > > > stack of "select" and "depends on", both directly and indirectly; adding > > > > > > a "select SPLICE_SYSCALL" to it seems fine. (That select does need > > > > > > adding, though. Pieter, you need to test-compile more than just > > > > > > tinyconfig and defconfig. Try an allyesconfig with *just* splice turned > > > > > > off, and make sure that compiles.) > > > > > > > > > > Did exacly that. Took forever on my hardware, but no problems. > > > > > > > > Ah, I see. Looking more closely at nfsd, it looks like it already has a > > > > code path for filesystems that don't do splice. I think, rather than > > > > making nfsd select SPLICE_SYSCALL, that it would suffice to change the > > > > "rqstp->rq_splice_ok = true;" in svc_process_common (net/sunrpc/svc.c) > > > > to: > > > > > > > > rqstp->rq_splice_ok = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPLICE_SYSCALL); > > > > > > > > Then nfsd should simply *always* fall back to its non-splice support. > > > > > > > > > > I'd probably prefer the above, actually. We have to keep supporting > > > non-splice enabled fs' for the forseeable future, so we may as well > > > allow people to run nfsd in such configurations. It could even be > > > useful for testing the non-splice-enabled codepaths. > > > > Good point! > > > > - Josh Triplett > > I'll add this to svc_process_common. I can squash this into PATCH 3, which is > where the syscalls can be compiled out. The log entry may however get a little > crowded and multi-functional. > > Should I keep this as a separate patch? I'd keep it as a separate patch, yes. It doesn't become necessary until patch 6, so you can add it as a new patch between patches 3 and 6. - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
