Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-10 Thread Kent Overstreet
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 07:03:56AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:37:00PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel. > > > > > > I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up > > > send it

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-10 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:20:51PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > > I sympathize, but the reality is that the current infrastructure > is very bad and no one is using it. > > It's not like we're getting rid of the syscall. I'll be behaving > exactly as it does today: returning the error code that

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-10 Thread Zach Brown
> And maybe the current way of doing things isn't the best way. But it > would be nice if we didn't completely give up on the functionality of > aio_cancel. I sympathize, but the reality is that the current infrastructure is very bad and no one is using it. It's not like we're getting rid of

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-10 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:37:00PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel. > > > > I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up > > send it out, I'll cc: you. > > Even better :) > > I've been looking at aio

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-10 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:37:00PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel. I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up send it out, I'll cc: you. Even better :) I've been looking at aio locking the past

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-10 Thread Zach Brown
And maybe the current way of doing things isn't the best way. But it would be nice if we didn't completely give up on the functionality of aio_cancel. I sympathize, but the reality is that the current infrastructure is very bad and no one is using it. It's not like we're getting rid of the

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-10 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:20:51PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: I sympathize, but the reality is that the current infrastructure is very bad and no one is using it. It's not like we're getting rid of the syscall. I'll be behaving exactly as it does today: returning the error code that

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-10 Thread Kent Overstreet
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 07:03:56AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:37:00PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel. I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up send it out, I'll cc:

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-09 Thread Kent Overstreet
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 11:26:25AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:39:17PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > Minor refactoring, to get rid of some duplicated code > > Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel. > > I have an RFC patch series that tears

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-09 Thread Zach Brown
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:39:17PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > Minor refactoring, to get rid of some duplicated code Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel. I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up send it out, I'll cc: you. - z -- To

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-09 Thread Zach Brown
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:39:17PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: Minor refactoring, to get rid of some duplicated code Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel. I have an RFC patch series that tears it out. Let me polish that up send it out, I'll cc: you. - z -- To

Re: [PATCH 2/5] aio: kiocb_cancel()

2012-10-09 Thread Kent Overstreet
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 11:26:25AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:39:17PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: Minor refactoring, to get rid of some duplicated code Honestly: I wouldn't bother. Nothing of consequence uses cancel. I have an RFC patch series that tears it