On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:27:46PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > At this point I wonder if we should simply treat O_DIRECT as a hint
> > and always allow it, and just let the file system optimize for it
> > (skip buffering, require alignment, relaxed Posix atomicy requirements)
> > if it is set.
>
> I thought that's how most filesystems treated it, anyway. i.e.
> anything they can't do via direct IO, they fell back to buffered IO
> to complete (e.g. for allocation or append writes, etc). Hence why I
> suggested the fallback rather than erroring out....
No, some file systems return EINVAL on the open. In fact that's what
the _require_odirect test in xfstests relies upon....
- Ted
--
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
