Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] xfs: truncate vs page fault IO exclusion

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu 08-01-15 04:24:48, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This patchset passes xfstests and various benchmarks and stress
> > workloads, so the real question is now:
> > 
> > 	What have I missed?
> > 
> > Comments, thoughts, flames?
> 
> Why is this done in XFS and not in generic code?
  I was also thinking about this. In the end I decided not to propose this
since the new rw-lock would grow struct inode and is actually necessary
only for filesystems implementing hole punching AFAICS. And that isn't
supported by that many filesystems. So fs private implementation which
isn't that complicated looked like a reasonable solution to me...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]