On Fri 25-06-10 02:36:10, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:59:22PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Moreover the async testing you do does not seem to be completely right. > > dio->is_async is a flag that controls whether dio code waits for IO to be > > completed or not. In particular it is not set for AIO that spans beyond > > current i_size so it does not seem to be exactly what you need (at least > > for ext4 it isn't). I think that is_sync_kiocb() is a test that should be > > used to recognize AIO - and that has an advantage that you don't have to > > pass the is_async flag around. > > No. is_sync_kiocb() means the ioctb was not intended as sync I/O from > the start. But we can only call aio_complete when we returned > -EIOCBQUEUED from ->aio_read/write. Take a look at the comment near the > end of direct_io_worker(). Ah, I see. Thanks for explanation. It's ugly but I also don't see a nicer way how to handle this. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
