On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 11:48:12AM +0100, John Garry wrote: > I have no strong attachment to that name (atomic). > > For both SCSI and NVMe, it's an "atomic" feature and I was basing the > naming on that. > > We could have RWF_NOTEARS or RWF_UNTEARABLE_WRITE or RWF_UNTEARABLE or > RWF_UNTORN or similar. Any preference? No particular preference between any of the option including atomic. Just mumbling out aloud my thoughts :) > For io_uring/rw.c, we have io_write() -> io_rw_init_file(..., WRITE), and > then later we set IOCB_WRITE, so would be neat to use there. But then > do_iter_readv_writev() does not set IOCB_WRITE - I can't imagine that > setting IOCB_WRITE would do any harm there. I see a similar change in > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/167391048988.2311931.1567396746365286847.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > AFAICS, setting IOCB_WRITE is quite inconsistent. From browsing through > fsdevel on lore, there was some history in trying to use IOCB_WRITE always > instead of iov_iter direction. Any idea what happened to that? > > I'm just getting the feeling that setting IOCB_WRITE in > kiocb_set_rw_flags() is a small part - and maybe counter productive - of a > larger job of fixing IOCB_WRITE usage. Someone (IIRC Dave H.) want to move it into the iov_iter a while ago. I think that is a bad idea - the iov_iter is a data container except for the shoehorned in read/write information doesn't describe the operation at all. So using the flag in the iocb seems like the better architecture. But I can understand that you might want to stay out of all of this, so let's not touch IOCB_WRITE here.
