On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:23:31AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > This doesn't belong in this patchset. It does. I can't fix up the calling conventions for a methods that was never implemented. > Regardless, can we just implement the damned thing rather than > removing it? Plenty of people have asked for it and they still want > this functionality. I've sent a couple of different prototypes that > worked but got bikeshedded to death, and IIRC Ben also tried to get > it implemented but that went nowhere because other parts of his > patchset got bikeshedded to death. > > If nothing else, just let me implement it in XFS like I did the > first time so when all the bikshedding stops we can convert it to > the One True AIO Interface that is decided on. I'm not going to complain about a proper implementation, but right now we don't have any, and I'm not even sure the method signature is all that suitable. E.g. for the in-kernel users we'd really want a ranged fsync like the normal fsync anyway. -- 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
