On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 02:30:24PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> So I've tried a different approach - the 2-op API rather than an actor.
>
> perform_write stays around as a higher performance API, but it isn't
> required if the filesystem implements the 2-op API. I've called them
>
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:25:41AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 03:33:01PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > ->kernel_write() as opposed to genericizing ->perform_write() would be fine
> > with me. Just so long as we get rid of ->prepare_write and ->commit_write in
> >
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:25:41AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 03:33:01PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote:
-kernel_write() as opposed to genericizing -perform_write() would be fine
with me. Just so long as we get rid of -prepare_write and -commit_write in
that other
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 02:30:24PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
So I've tried a different approach - the 2-op API rather than an actor.
perform_write stays around as a higher performance API, but it isn't
required if the filesystem implements the 2-op API. I've called them
write_begin/write_end
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:25:41AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 03:33:01PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > ->kernel_write() as opposed to genericizing ->perform_write() would be fine
> > with me. Just so long as we get rid of ->prepare_write and ->commit_write in
> >
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 09:25:41AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 03:33:01PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote:
-kernel_write() as opposed to genericizing -perform_write() would be fine
with me. Just so long as we get rid of -prepare_write and -commit_write in
that other
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 03:33:01PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> ->kernel_write() as opposed to genericizing ->perform_write() would be fine
> with me. Just so long as we get rid of ->prepare_write and ->commit_write in
> that other kernel code doesn't call them directly. That interface just
>
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 03:33:01PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote:
-kernel_write() as opposed to genericizing -perform_write() would be fine
with me. Just so long as we get rid of -prepare_write and -commit_write in
that other kernel code doesn't call them directly. That interface just
doesn't work
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:39:13AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > One problem with this interface is that it cannot be used to write into the
> > filesystem by any means other than already-initialised buffers via iovecs.
> > So
> > prepare/commit have to stay around for non-user data...
>
On 9 Mar 2007, at 12:52, Nick Piggin wrote:
Hi Christoph,
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:39:13AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Hi Nick,
sorry for my later reply, this has been on my to answer list for
the last
month and I only managed to get back to it now.
No worries, I haven't had much
Hi Christoph,
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:39:13AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> sorry for my later reply, this has been on my to answer list for the last
> month and I only managed to get back to it now.
No worries, I haven't had much time to work on it since then anyway.
Thanks
Hi Nick,
sorry for my later reply, this has been on my to answer list for the last
month and I only managed to get back to it now.
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 02:07:36PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Add a new "perform_write" aop, which replaces prepare_write and commit_write
> as a single call to
Hi Nick,
sorry for my later reply, this has been on my to answer list for the last
month and I only managed to get back to it now.
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 02:07:36PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Add a new perform_write aop, which replaces prepare_write and commit_write
as a single call to copy a
Hi Christoph,
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:39:13AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Hi Nick,
sorry for my later reply, this has been on my to answer list for the last
month and I only managed to get back to it now.
No worries, I haven't had much time to work on it since then anyway.
Thanks for
On 9 Mar 2007, at 12:52, Nick Piggin wrote:
Hi Christoph,
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:39:13AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Hi Nick,
sorry for my later reply, this has been on my to answer list for
the last
month and I only managed to get back to it now.
No worries, I haven't had much
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:39:13AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
One problem with this interface is that it cannot be used to write into the
filesystem by any means other than already-initialised buffers via iovecs.
So
prepare/commit have to stay around for non-user data...
Actually
Add a new "perform_write" aop, which replaces prepare_write and commit_write
as a single call to copy a given amount of userdata at the given offset. This
is more flexible, because the implementation can determine how to best handle
errors, or multi-page ranges (eg. it may use a gang lookup), and
Add a new perform_write aop, which replaces prepare_write and commit_write
as a single call to copy a given amount of userdata at the given offset. This
is more flexible, because the implementation can determine how to best handle
errors, or multi-page ranges (eg. it may use a gang lookup), and
18 matches
Mail list logo
