On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 08:16:44PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> I can't tell if you are saying what I've done is fine if the
> xfs-dio-fix-4.6 branch is stable (so others can pull it) or whether
> it should be in some other tree. Can you clarify, Christoph?
What you are doing is fine, thanks!
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:40:15PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> We only need to communicate two bits of information to the direct I/O
> completion handler:
>
> (1) do we need to convert any unwritten extents in the range
> (2) do we need to check if we need to update the inode size based
>
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 12:00:26PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:40:15PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > We only need to communicate two bits of information to the direct I/O
> > completion handler:
> >
> > (1) do we need to convert any unwritten extents in the
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 01:57:18PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:40:15PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > - struct kiocb*iocb,
> > - loff_t offset,
> > - ssize_t size,
> > - void*private)
> >
See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
We only need to communicate two bits of information to the direct I/O
completion handler:
(1) do we need to convert any unwritten extents in the range
(2) do we need to check if we need to update the inode size based
on the range passed to the