On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 07:16:38PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 06:35:48PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 01:30:01PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:05:38PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:30:10PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > > > do_blockdev_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode, > > > > > struct block_device *bdev, struct iov_iter *iter, > > > > > get_block_t get_block, dio_iodone_t end_io, > > > > > - dio_submit_t submit_io, int flags) > > > > > + dio_submit_t submit_io, int flags, void *private) > > > > > > > > Oh, dear... That's what, 9 arguments? I agree that the hack in question > > > > is obscene, but so is this ;-/ > > > > > > So looking at these one by one, obviously needed: > > > > > > - iocb > > > - inode > > > - iter > > > > > > bdev is almost always inode->i_sb->s_bdev, except for Btrfs :( > > > > > > These could _maybe_ go in struct kiocb: > > > > > > - flags could maybe be folded into ki_flags > > > - private could maybe go in iocb->private, but I haven't yet read > > > through to figure out if we're already using iocb->private for direct > > > I/O > > > > I think the kiocb::private can be used for the purpose. There's only one > > user, ext4, that also passes some DIO data around so it would in line > > with the interface AFAICS. > > Omar, do you have an update to the patchset? Thanks. Al, what do you think of changing all users of map_bh->b_private to use iocb->private? We'd have to pass the iocb to get_block() and submit_io(), but we could get rid of dio->private.
