On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:34:48AM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
I'm not sure what the best way to handle this would be.
If we assume that maxphys is a power of 2, we could use a maxphys-derived
mask here. Otherwise, maybe we should compute and cache the largest power-of-2
value below maxphys
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 08:17:05AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:34:48AM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
I'm not sure what the best way to handle this would be.
If we assume that maxphys is a power of 2, we could use a maxphys-derived
mask here. Otherwise,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:34:48AM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 05:59:06PM -0700, Chuck Silvers wrote:
[...]
with a 'cat big_file /dev/null'
writes are still limited to 64k ...
I would hope that cat'ing a file to /dev/null wouldn't result in any
writes.
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 05:59:06PM -0700, Chuck Silvers wrote:
if so, then the reason for the 64k writes would be this block of code in
ffs_write():
if (!async oldoff 16 != uio-uio_offset 16) {
mutex_enter(vp-v_interlock);
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:48:37AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 05:59:06PM -0700, Chuck Silvers wrote:
if so, then the reason for the 64k writes would be this block of code in
ffs_write():
if (!async oldoff 16 != uio-uio_offset 16) {
