Hi Guys,
On 1/6/15, Ming Lei wrote:
> On 1/6/15, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
>> On 12/31/2014 04:52 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Sedat Dilek
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Dave Kleikamp
wrote:
> On 12/31/2014 02:38 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>
On 1/6/15, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
> On 12/31/2014 04:52 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Sedat Dilek
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Dave Kleikamp
>>> wrote:
On 12/31/2014 02:38 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> What has happened to that aio_loop patchset?
>>
On 12/31/2014 04:52 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Dave Kleikamp
wrote:
On 12/31/2014 02:38 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
What has happened to that aio_loop patchset?
Is it in Linux-next?
( /me started to play with "block: lo
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Dave Kleikamp
> wrote:
>> On 12/31/2014 02:38 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>>
>>> What has happened to that aio_loop patchset?
>>> Is it in Linux-next?
>>> ( /me started to play with "block: loop: convert to blk-mq
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Dave Kleikamp
wrote:
> On 12/31/2014 02:38 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>
>> What has happened to that aio_loop patchset?
>> Is it in Linux-next?
>> ( /me started to play with "block: loop: convert to blk-mq (v3)", so I
>> recalled this other improvement. )
>
> It met
On 12/31/2014 02:38 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
> What has happened to that aio_loop patchset?
> Is it in Linux-next?
> ( /me started to play with "block: loop: convert to blk-mq (v3)", so I
> recalled this other improvement. )
It met with some harsh resistance, so I backed off on it. Then Al Viro
g
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> This patch series adds a kernel interface to fs/aio.c so that kernel code can
> issue concurrent asynchronous IO to file systems. It adds an aio command and
> file system methods which specify io memory with pages instead of userspace
> addr
On 10/15/2013 12:18 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:14:47PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
>>> While I agree that getting that would be useful it is something that has
>>> nothing to do with issueing aio from kernel space and holding this
>>> patchset hostage for something
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:14:47PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > While I agree that getting that would be useful it is something that has
> > nothing to do with issueing aio from kernel space and holding this
> > patchset hostage for something you'd like to see but that was
> > complicated eno
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 09:55:20AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 05:29:10PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:07:01AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Ben,
> > >
> > > are you fine with the series now? It's been in linux-next for a whil
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 05:29:10PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:07:01AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Ben,
> >
> > are you fine with the series now? It's been in linux-next for a while
> > and it would be really helpful to get it in for the avarious places
> >
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:07:01AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Ben,
>
> are you fine with the series now? It's been in linux-next for a while
> and it would be really helpful to get it in for the avarious places
> trying to do in-kernel file aio without going through the page cache.
No, I
Ben,
are you fine with the series now? It's been in linux-next for a while
and it would be really helpful to get it in for the avarious places
trying to do in-kernel file aio without going through the page cache.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the b
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:30:32PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:02:31 -0400 Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
>
> > One of the major problems your changeset continues to carry is that your
> > new read_iter/write_iter operations permit blocking (implicitely), which
> > really isn'
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:02:31 -0400 Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> One of the major problems your changeset continues to carry is that your
> new read_iter/write_iter operations permit blocking (implicitely), which
> really isn't what we want for aio. If you're going to introduce a new api,
> it sh
On 08/21/2013 11:39 AM, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:30:22AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>> Ben,
>> First, let me apologize for neglecting to copy you and linux-aio on the
>> applicable patches. I've been carrying along this patchset, assuming I
>> had gotten the proper cc's
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:30:22AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> Ben,
> First, let me apologize for neglecting to copy you and linux-aio on the
> applicable patches. I've been carrying along this patchset, assuming I
> had gotten the proper cc's correct a while back, but I somehow missed
> the aio
Ben,
First, let me apologize for neglecting to copy you and linux-aio on the
applicable patches. I've been carrying along this patchset, assuming I
had gotten the proper cc's correct a while back, but I somehow missed
the aio pieces.
On 08/21/2013 08:02 AM, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> Hello Dave,
>
Hello Dave,
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:50:26PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> This patch series adds a kernel interface to fs/aio.c so that kernel code can
> issue concurrent asynchronous IO to file systems. It adds an aio command and
> file system methods which specify io memory with pages instea
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:13:15 -0500 Dave Kleikamp
> wrote:
>>
>> Would you be willing to pick up
>> git://github.com/kleikamp/linux-shaggy.git for-next
>> into linux-next?
>
> I have added that from today.
>
>> There will be
Hi Dave,
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:13:15 -0500 Dave Kleikamp
wrote:
>
> Would you be willing to pick up
> git://github.com/kleikamp/linux-shaggy.git for-next
> into linux-next?
I have added that from today.
> There will be some unclean merges, and I can send you updated patches
> created against
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 06:00:56 -0700 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> As I've seen very few replies to this: how do we ensure this gets
> picked up for the 3.12 merge window? The series has been a reposted
> a few times without complaints or major changes,
That's probably a sign that nobody bothered r
Stephen,
Would you be willing to pick up
git://github.com/kleikamp/linux-shaggy.git for-next
into linux-next?
There will be some unclean merges, and I can send you updated patches
created against your latest tree. I'm not exactly sure of your process
wrt cleaning up merges, but I guess they would
As I've seen very few replies to this: how do we ensure this gets
picked up for the 3.12 merge window? The series has been a reposted
a few times without complaints or major changes, but the ball still
doesn't seem to get rolling.
I'd really like to do some ecryptfs and scsi target work that is
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 08:04:24AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On 08/01/2013 03:58 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > What should be added to this support is to move the swap over nfs code
> > over to this interface instead of the utterly bogus
> > KERNEL_READ/KERNEL_WRITE hacks that were added for
On 08/01/2013 03:58 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> What should be added to this support is to move the swap over nfs code
> over to this interface instead of the utterly bogus
> KERNEL_READ/KERNEL_WRITE hacks that were added for it.
That's patch 24/33 nfs: simplify swap
--
To unsubscribe from this
What should be added to this support is to move the swap over nfs code
over to this interface instead of the utterly bogus
KERNEL_READ/KERNEL_WRITE hacks that were added for it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.ke
07/31/2013 01:28 AM, Andrew Morton пишет:
On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:50:26 -0500 Dave Kleikamp
wrote:
This patch series adds a kernel interface to fs/aio.c so that kernel code can
issue concurrent asynchronous IO to file systems. It adds an aio command and
file system methods which specify io me
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:28:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:50:26 -0500 Dave Kleikamp
>> wrote:
>>
>> > This patch series adds a kernel interface to fs/aio.c so that kernel code
>> > can
>> > issue concurrent as
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:28:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:50:26 -0500 Dave Kleikamp
> wrote:
>
> > This patch series adds a kernel interface to fs/aio.c so that kernel code
> > can
> > issue concurrent asynchronous IO to file systems. It adds an aio command
> > a
On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:50:26 -0500 Dave Kleikamp
wrote:
> This patch series adds a kernel interface to fs/aio.c so that kernel code can
> issue concurrent asynchronous IO to file systems. It adds an aio command and
> file system methods which specify io memory with pages instead of userspace
>
This patch series adds a kernel interface to fs/aio.c so that kernel code can
issue concurrent asynchronous IO to file systems. It adds an aio command and
file system methods which specify io memory with pages instead of userspace
addresses.
This series was written to reduce the current overhead
32 matches
Mail list logo
