On 09/17/2013 09:00 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:56:38AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Al,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got conflicts in fs/nfs/direct.c
>> and fs/nfs/file.c between commits b9517433d65d ("dio: Convert direct_IO
>> to use iov_iter"), a8431c667ae8 ("nfs: add support for read_iter,
>> write_iter") and a1b8ec384b73 ("nfs: simplify swap") from the aio-direct
>> tree and commit c18d1ec44f7a ("nfs: use %p[dD] instead of open-coded (and
>> often racy) equivalents") from the vfs tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>> is required).
>
> Hrm... FWIW, I would greatly prefer to offload these printk patches to
> NFS and NFSD trees. Didn't get around to that yet, but...
>
> As for aio-direct... Two questions:
> * had anybody tried to measure the effect on branch predictor from
> introducing that method vector? Commit d6afd4c4 ("iov_iter: hide iovec
> details behind ops function pointers")
Any suggestions for a good benchmark?
> * WTF does aforementioned commit lack its author's s-o-b? The same
> goes for a lot of zab's commits in there...
That would be my bad. Zach's original patches had his s-o-b (w/an Oracle
email address). I'll add them back.
Shaggy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
