On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 05:42:37PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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 don't recall the exact discussion that was had, but at the time it was an evil that I couldn't see a way of avoiding, and with no other solution being presented. ISTR a tie-in with the DAX code, too, but that's gone away now with the block zeroing during allocation rather than using unwritten extents and completions for this. > > 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. *nod* Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
