Hi all,
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:15:08 -0700 Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 08 2013, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 07 2013, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Btw, I have to state that I very much disagree with dropping the
> > > direct I/O kernel changes, and I also very much disagree with keepi
> > > That make sense? I can show you more concretely what I'm working on if
> > > you want. Or if I'm full of crap and this is useless for what you guys
> > > want I'm sure you'll let me know :)
> >
> > It sounds interesting, but also a little confusing at this point, at
> > least from the non-bl
On Fri, Nov 08 2013, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07 2013, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Btw, I have to state that I very much disagree with dropping the
> > direct I/O kernel changes, and I also very much disagree with keeping
> > the immutable iovecs in.
> >
> > For the latter I think the immu
On Thu, Nov 07 2013, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Btw, I have to state that I very much disagree with dropping the
> direct I/O kernel changes, and I also very much disagree with keeping
> the immutable iovecs in.
>
> For the latter I think the immutable iovecs are useful and do want to
> see them e
On 11/08/2013 01:33 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Btw, I have to state that I very much disagree with dropping the
> direct I/O kernel changes, and I also very much disagree with keeping
> the immutable iovecs in.
>
> For the latter I think the immutable iovecs are useful and do want to
> see the
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:32:51AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:17:37AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > The core issue isn't whether the IO is going to a block based filesystem
> > (but thanks for pointing out that that's not necessarily true!) but
> > whether we w
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:17:37AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> The core issue isn't whether the IO is going to a block based filesystem
> (but thanks for pointing out that that's not necessarily true!) but
> whether we want to work with pinned pages or not. If pinned pages are ok
> for everythi
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:02:21AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:56:17PM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > So, I don't think the iov_iter stuff is the right approach for solving
> > the loop issue; it's an ugly hack and after immutable biovecs we're
> > pretty close t
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:56:17PM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> So, I don't think the iov_iter stuff is the right approach for solving
> the loop issue; it's an ugly hack and after immutable biovecs we're
> pretty close to a better solution and some major cleanups too.
All the consumers aren't
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:44:45PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:39:59PM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:33:24PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > The changes for direct I/O from kernel space have been in for a long
> > > time, and the
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:39:59PM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:33:24PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > The changes for direct I/O from kernel space have been in for a long
> > time, and they are blocking multiple consumers of the interface from
> > getting submitt
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:33:24PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The changes for direct I/O from kernel space have been in for a long
> time, and they are blocking multiple consumers of the interface from
> getting submitted for about a year now. Even if the guts of the
> direct-io code will g
Btw, I have to state that I very much disagree with dropping the
direct I/O kernel changes, and I also very much disagree with keeping
the immutable iovecs in.
For the latter I think the immutable iovecs are useful and do want to
see them eventually, but they were merged at the latest possible poi
On Fri, Nov 08 2013, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:04:57 -0600 Dave Kleikamp
> wrote:
> >
> > Can you please drop the aio-direct tree for the time being?
>
> OK, I was afraid of this, but, yes, I can drop it. I am not quite sure
> what affect this will have on An
On 11/07/2013 08:08 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:53:07PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:04:57 -0600 Dave Kleikamp
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you please drop the aio-direct tree for the time being?
>>
>> OK, I was afraid of this, but, y
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:53:07PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:04:57 -0600 Dave Kleikamp
> wrote:
> >
> > Can you please drop the aio-direct tree for the time being?
>
> OK, I was afraid of this, but, yes, I can drop it. I am not quite sure
> what affect
Hi all,
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:04:57 -0600 Dave Kleikamp
wrote:
>
> Can you please drop the aio-direct tree for the time being?
OK, I was afraid of this, but, yes, I can drop it. I am not quite sure
what affect this will have on Andrew's tree, though (hopefully not too
much).
This is a bit di
On 11/07/2013 01:25 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:20:26PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>> I ended up replacing a call to bio_iovec_idx() with __bvec_iter_bvec()
>> since the former was removed. It's not very elegant, but it works. I'm
>> open to suggestions on a cleaner fi
On 11/07/2013 01:25 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:20:26PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>> On 11/02/2013 03:50 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2013 03:53 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
So we've three immediate options:
1) You base it on top of the block tree
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:20:26PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On 11/02/2013 03:50 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > On 11/01/2013 03:53 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> >> So we've three immediate options:
> >>
> >> 1) You base it on top of the block tree
> >> 2) I carry the loop updates
> >> 3) You hand S
On 11/02/2013 03:50 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 03:53 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> So we've three immediate options:
>>
>> 1) You base it on top of the block tree
>> 2) I carry the loop updates
>> 3) You hand Stephen a merge patch for the resulting merge of the two
>
> Attached is a merg
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:17:22AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Dave Kleikamp
> wrote:
> > On 11/01/2013 03:53 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 11/01/2013 02:41 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> >>> On 11/01/2013 03:27 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 02:22 PM, S
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 03:53 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 11/01/2013 02:41 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2013 03:27 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 11/01/2013 02:22 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:10:4
On 11/01/2013 03:53 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 02:41 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>> On 11/01/2013 03:27 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2013 02:22 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Jens,
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:10:43 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> On 10/31/2013 09:20 PM,
On 11/01/2013 02:41 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 03:27 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 11/01/2013 02:22 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi Jens,
>>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:10:43 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
On 10/31/2013 09:20 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> Today's linux-
On 11/01/2013 03:27 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 02:22 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:10:43 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/31/2013 09:20 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in
dri
On 11/01/2013 02:22 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:10:43 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> On 10/31/2013 09:20 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in
>>> drivers/block/loop.c between commit 2486740b52fd ("loo
Hi Jens,
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:10:43 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> On 10/31/2013 09:20 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in
> > drivers/block/loop.c between commit 2486740b52fd ("loop: use aio to
> > perform io on the underlying file") f
On 10/31/2013 09:20 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in
> drivers/block/loop.c between commit 2486740b52fd ("loop: use aio to
> perform io on the underlying file") from the aio-direct tree and commit
> ed2d2f9a8265 ("block: Abstra
Hi Jens,
Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in
drivers/block/loop.c between commit 2486740b52fd ("loop: use aio to
perform io on the underlying file") from the aio-direct tree and commit
ed2d2f9a8265 ("block: Abstract out bvec iterator") from the block tree.
I fixed it up (
30 matches
Mail list logo
