On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 09:57 -0700, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > On 06/10/2011 09:28 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > >> > >> That makes it even more complicated for a do nothing function. We dont do > >> a different function for each different parameter. We can just do a > >> "bool write" and unify the dam thing > > > > Right now, the nfs_pageio_descriptor doesn't know about reads vs writes. > > It just knows about 'coalesce requests' and 'perform i/o'. I'd prefer to > > keep that abstraction, as it makes things cleaner, particularly when you > > get to patch 5 (NFSv4.1: Fall back to ordinary i/o through the mds if we > > have no layout segment). Why add more 'if' statements when you don't > > need to... > > > > OK It's fine. I'm convinced. Do you have this on a git tree? I want to test > it out. I've added it to the 'nfs-for-bakeathon' branch. > What was the disposition of desc->pg_bsize do I need to adjust it for the > pnfs_case in objlayout? You might need to adjust it. Please check... I'm still working on the 'fallback to write through mds' case to ensure that we re-coalesce if the call to pnfs_try_to_read_data() and pnfs_try_to_write_data(). Once that is done, I think that the objects code will always do the right thing and I anticipate that the blocks code can reuse the same code... Cheers Trond -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx www.netapp.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
