On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:31:18AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > FWIW, I don't see any such review comments against the three versions of > the "DIO needs an ioend for writes" patch I have in my mailbox, but I > easily could have missed something..? But if there wasn't time, then > fair enough. I'll have to look at the mailboxes, but I remember Dave sending this out and complaining. > I'm just looking for context. I don't have much of an opinion on which > approach is used here. If it simplifies COW, then that seems good enough > reason to me to take this approach. I'm pointing this out more because > this code seems to have been rewritten the last couple of times we > needed to fix something, which makes backports particularly annoying. > The two patches above were associated with a broader enhancement and a > bug fix (respectively) as a sort of justification, whereas this post had > a much more vague purpose from what I could tell, and therefore why I at > least hadn't taken the time to review it. > > If COW is the primary motivator, perhaps we can bundle it with that > work? The prime motivator is to: (1) avoid a pointless memory allocation (2) avoid a pointless context switch (3) avoid pointless code complexity COW is just another case where these show up. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
