Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964942AbWEBRYS (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 May 2006 13:24:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964944AbWEBRYR (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 May 2006 13:24:17 -0400 Received: from ns9.hostinglmi.net ([213.194.149.146]:26320 "EHLO ns9.hostinglmi.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964942AbWEBRYP (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 May 2006 13:24:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 19:24:11 +0200 From: DervishD To: Nathan Scott Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Linux-kernel Subject: Re: O_DIRECT, ext3fs, kernel 2.4.32... again Message-ID: <20060502172411.GA6112@DervishD> Mail-Followup-To: Nathan Scott , Marcelo Tosatti , Linux-kernel References: <20060427063249.GH761@DervishD> <20060501062058.GA16589@dmt> <20060501112303.GA1951@DervishD> <20060502072808.A1873249@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20060502072808.A1873249@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Organization: DervishD X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ns9.hostinglmi.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - dervishd.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1582 Lines: 38 Hi Nathan :) * Nathan Scott dixit: > On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 01:23:03PM +0200, DervishD wrote: > > * Marcelo Tosatti dixit: > > > > Shouldn't ext3fs return an error when the O_DIRECT flag is > > > > used in the open call? Is the open call userspace only and thus > > > > only libc can return such error? Am I misunderstanding the entire > > > > issue and this is a perfectly legal behaviour (allowing the open, > > > > failing in the read operation)? > > > > > > Your interpretation is correct. It would be nicer for open() to > > > fail on fs'es which don't support O_DIRECT, but v2.4 makes such > > > check later at read/write unfortunately ;( > > > > Oops :( > > Nothing else really make sense due to fcntl... > fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, O_DIRECT); > ...can happen at any time, to enable/disable direct I/O. I know, but that fcntl call should fail just like the open() one. I mean, I don't find this very different, it's just another point where the flag can be activated and so it should fail if the underlying filesystem doesn't support it (and doesn't ignore it in read()/write()). Ra?l N??ez de Arenas Coronado -- Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net http://www.pleyades.net & http://www.gotesdelluna.net It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen! - 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/