Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:14:34AM -0500, Zach Brown wrote: >> Yeah, that's reasonable. Perhaps obviously, we started with new entry >> points to minimize the amount of churn we'd have to go through to test >> the change in behaviour. >> >> It's going to be messy to try and abstract away the pinning and dirtying >> of the iter regions from direct IO through the iter interface, but maybe >> not horribly so. > > I don't really care to much about the implementation inside fs/direct-io.c > (at least for now - once I see it I might still scream "bloody > murder!"). > > The point is to pass the iov_iter all the way down to a common entry > point in fs/direct-io.c, so that the filesystems don't have to care > for that difference. I started reviewing, but I think I'll hold off until the next posting. Dave, what was the original subject of the thread from Zach back in '09? That spinics link isn't working for me anymore, and I'd like to go back over my review comments from back then. Cheers, Jeff -- 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
