Subject: Re: [PATCH] aio: propogate post-EIOCBQUEUED errors to completion
	event
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Cc: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
       "Ananiev, Leonid I" <leonid.i.ananiev@intel.com>,
       Zach Brown <zach.brown@oracle.com>, linux-aio@kvack.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Suparna bhattacharya <suparna@in.ibm.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1171987310.6271.23.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
References: <20070219203527.20419.68418.sendpatchset@tetsuo.zabbo.net>
	 <B41635854730A14CA71C92B36EC22AAC83B044@mssmsx411>
	 <20070219215048.GI6133@think.oraclecorp.com>
	 <20070220002109.GG31205@kvack.org>
	 <1171987310.6271.23.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Intel International BV
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:06:47 +0100
Message-Id: <1171987607.3531.142.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 627
Lines: 16


> We don't try to resolve "conflicting" writes between ordinary mmap() and
> write(), so why should we be doing it for mmap and O_DIRECT?
> 
> mmap() is designed to violate the ordinary mutex locks for write(), so
> if a conflict arises, whether it be with O_DIRECT or ordinary writes
> then it is a case of "last writer wins".

but.. wouldn't an O_DIRECT *read* even cause this?


-
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/