[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] fs: remove the never implemented aio_fsync file operation
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 02:07:54PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:23:31AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > This doesn't belong in this patchset.
> It does. I can't fix up the calling conventions for a methods that
> was never implemented.

That sounds like a problem with your fix - it should work
regardless of whether a valid/implemented AIO function is called
or not, right? There's no difference between an invalid command,
IOCB_CMD_FSYNC where ->aio_fsync() is null, or some supported
command that immediately returns -EIO, the end result should
be the same...

> > Regardless, can we just implement the damned thing rather than
> > removing it? Plenty of people have asked for it and they still want
> > this functionality. I've sent a couple of different prototypes that
> > worked but got bikeshedded to death, and IIRC Ben also tried to get
> > it implemented but that went nowhere because other parts of his
> > patchset got bikeshedded to death.
> >
> > If nothing else, just let me implement it in XFS like I did the
> > first time so when all the bikshedding stops we can convert it to
> > the One True AIO Interface that is decided on.
> I'm not going to complain about a proper implementation, but right now
> we don't have any, and I'm not even sure the method signature is
> all that suitable. E.g. for the in-kernel users we'd really want a
> ranged fsync like the normal fsync anyway.

You mean like this version I posted a year ago:


Dave Chinner

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-31 21:25    [W:0.102 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site