On Wed, Jul 30 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > > > There are no real disadvantages: splice() from a file was > > > originally meant to be asynchronous, but in reality it only did > > > that for non-readahead pages, which happen rarely. > > > > I still don't like this. I still don't see the point, and I still > > think there is something fundamentally wrong elsewhere. You snipped the part where Linus objected to dismissing the async nature, I fully agree with that part. > We discussed the possible solutions with Nick, and came to the > conclusion, that short term (i.e. 2.6.27) this is probably the best > solution. Ehm where? Nick also said that he didn't like removing the ->confirm() bits as they are completely related to the async nature of splice. You already submitted this exact patch earlier and it was nak'ed. > Long term sure, I have no problem with implementing async splice. > > In fact, I may even have personal interest in looking at splice, > because people are asking for a zero-copy interface for fuse. > > But that is definitely not 2.6.27, so I think you should reconsider > taking this patch, which is obviously correct due to its simplicity, > and won't cause any performance regressions either. Then please just fix the issue, instead of removing the bits that make this possible. -- Jens Axboe -- 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
