On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 08:48:30PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > Yes, we can do that -- how about aio_restarted() as an alternate name ? Sounds fine to me. > > Pluse possible naming updates discussed in the last mail. Also do we > > really need to pass current->io_wait here? Isn't the waitqueue in > > the kiocb always guaranteed to be the same? Now that all pagecache > > We don't have have the kiocb available to this routine. Using current->io_wait > avoids the need to pass the iocb down to deeper levels just for the sync vs > async checks, also allowing such routines to be shared by other code which > does not use iocbs (e.g. generic_file_sendfile->do_generic_file_read > ->do_generic_mapping_read) without having to set up dummy iocbs. We really want to switch senfile to kiocbs btw, - for one thing to allow an aio_sendfile implementation and second to make it more common to all the other I/O path code so we can avoid special cases in the fs code So I'm not convinced by that argument. But again we don't need to put the io_wait removal into your patchkit. I'll try to hack on it once I'll get a little spare time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
