Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262513AbVE1JIw (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 May 2005 05:08:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262528AbVE1JIw (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 May 2005 05:08:52 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:36487 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262512AbVE1JIp (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 May 2005 05:08:45 -0400 Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 10:08:41 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Carsten Otte Cc: suparna@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, akpm@osdl.org, Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/4] fs/mm: execute in place (3rd version) Message-ID: <20050528090841.GB19153@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Carsten Otte , suparna@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, akpm@osdl.org References: <1116866094.12153.12.camel@cotte.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <1116869420.12153.32.camel@cotte.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20050524093029.GA4390@in.ibm.com> <42935DE1.4040301@freenet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42935DE1.4040301@freenet.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1462 Lines: 29 On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 07:01:21PM +0200, Carsten Otte wrote: > When looking at patch v2, the read split is done in do_generic_mapping_read > vs do_xip_mapping read. In the write path, the split is at > generic_file_xip_write, > generic_file_buffered_write and generic_file_direct_write. > How about abstracting on that interface? Like make those become address > space operations. No, these aren't related to the address_space at all. Please keep the abstractions clean or we'll end up with a total mess. > This way, the filesystems could select the corresponding > function. No need to distinguish between xip, direct_IO, and classic > readpage/writepage in the generic code anymore. > Would this go in the direction you're thinking Suparna? Is it worth a > try to see > how it comes out? Opinions anyone? I don't think this split makes a whole lot of sense either. The normal codepath needs to go through a lot of hops to make sure the odd behaviour of falling back from direct to buffered I/O for some types of requests works. That needs intimate knowledge of how the direct and buffered I/O path works. Your XIP codepath has the luxury of not having to care for all this, so you can keep it really simple. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/