Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xfs: don't use ioends for direct write completions

2016-02-08 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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!

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xfs: don't use ioends for direct write completions

2016-02-07 Thread Dave Chinner
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 >

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xfs: don't use ioends for direct write completions

2016-02-07 Thread Dave Chinner
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

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xfs: don't use ioends for direct write completions

2016-02-05 Thread Dave Chinner
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) > >