Re: [PATCH v2 03/15] block: Support data lifetime in the I/O priority bitfield

[Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx>]

On 10/16/23 02:20, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> So when you say:
> "It depends on how we want the user to specify the data lifetime for
> direct I/O.", do you mean that buffered I/O should use fcntl() to specify
> data lifetime, but direct I/O should used Linux IO priority API to specify
> the same?
>
> Because, to me that seems to be how the series is currently working.
> (I am sorry if I am missing something.)

Let's drop support for passing the data lifetime in the I/O priority
field from user space as Damien proposed. The remaining question is
whether only to restore support for F_SET_RW_HINT (per inode) or also
for F_SET_FILE_RW_HINT (per file)?

Thanks,

Bart.