On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 06:14:55PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I remembered about this patch set and realized I didn't get reply from > you regarding the following question (see quoted email below for details): > Do you really need to defer completion of appending direct IO? Because > generic code makes sure appending direct IO isn't async and thus > dio_complete() -> xfs_end_io_direct_write() gets called directly from > do_blockdev_direct_IO(). I.e. from a normal context and not from interrupt. Hi Jan, sorry I haven't got back to you sooner - I've had a lot of stuff to deal with over the past couple of weeks. The issue is that one part of the code expects deferral , and the other part of the code isn't doing a deferral, and I never got around to determining which was correct. I didn't connect the dots between aio/appending and sync dispatch meaning that the way it is operating now is fine - i.e. that the fact it doesn't call the deferral completion path is OK and was intended to operate that way by Christoph. So leaving the code as it is without a deferal is fine. > I've already addressed rest of your comments so this is the only item that > is remaining. Great :) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
