On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > We discussed this yesterday. My conclusion was (which I still think > is true) that it can't be fixed in page_cache_pipe_buf_confirm(), > because due to current practice of not setting PG_error for I/O errors > for read, it is impossible to distinguish between a never-been-uptodate > page and a was-uptodate-before-invalidation page. Umm. The regular read does this quite well. If something isn't up-to-date, it tries a synchronous read. Once. > And it's not just an nfsd issue. Userspace might also expect that if > a zero count is returned, that means it went beyond EOF, and not that > it should retry the splice, maybe it has better luck this time. You're totally ignoring the real issue - user space that uses splice() *knows* that it uses splice(). It's a private mmap(). NFSD, on the other hand, is supposed to act as NFSD. I think that currently it assumes that nobody else modifies the files, which is reasonable, but breaks with FUSE. But do you see? That's a NFSD/FUSE issue, not a splice one! Linus -- 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
