[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Should implementations of ->direct_access be allowed to sleep?
On 03/29/2015 11:02 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 03/26/2015 09:32 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> I think that ->direct_access should not be any different then
> any other block-device access, ie allow to sleep.

BTW: Matthew you yourself have said that after a page-load of memcpy
a user should call sched otherwise bad things will happen to the system
you even commented so on one of my patches when you thought I was
allowing a single memcpy bigger than a page.

So if the user *must* call sched after a call to ->direct_access that
is a "sleep" No?


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-29 11:41    [W:0.099 / U:8.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site