Return-Path: Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com ([209.85.217.176]:35490 "EHLO mail-lb0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751922AbbEGCw4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 May 2015 22:52:56 -0400 Received: by lbbuc2 with SMTP id uc2so21147147lbb.2 for ; Wed, 06 May 2015 19:52:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1428703236-24735-1-git-send-email-zab@redhat.com> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 19:52:34 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] simple copy offloading system call To: Michael Kerrisk Cc: Linux FS Devel , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux API , Linux SCSI List , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Linux btrfs Developers List , Zach Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On May 6, 2015 11:45 AM, "Michael Kerrisk" wrote: > > [CC += linux-api@vger.kernel.org] > > Zach, > > Since this is a kernel-user-space API change, please CC linux-api@. > The kernel source file Documentation/SubmitChecklist notes that all > Linux kernel patches that change userspace interfaces should be CCed > to linux-api@vger.kernel.org, so that the various parties who are > interested in API changes are informed. For further information, see > https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/linux-api-ml.html > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Zach Brown wrote: > > Hello everyone! > > > > Here's my current attempt at the most basic system call interface for > > offloading copying between files. The system call and vfs function > > are relatively light wrappers around the file_operation method that > > does the heavy lifting. > > > > There was interest at LSF in getting the basic infrastructure merged > > before worrying about adding behavioural flags and more complicated > > implementations. This series only offers a refactoring of the btrfs > > clone ioctl as an example of an implementation of the file > > copy_file_range method. > > > > I've added support for copy_file_range() to xfs_io in xfsprogs and > > have the start of an xfstest that tests the system call. I'll send > > those to fstests@. > > > > So how does this look? > > > > Do we want to merge this and let the NFS and block XCOPY patches add > > their changes when they're ready? This sounds enough like splice that I'm wondering why the API isn't splice. --Andy