From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 In-reply-to: <20080204193939.GA19236@lst.de> (message from Christoph Hellwig on Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:39:39 -0500) Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] add perform_write to a_ops References: <20080204170409.991123259@szeredi.hu> <20080204193939.GA19236@lst.de> Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:52:06 +0100 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: hch@lst.de Cc: npiggin@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > > a_ops->perform_write() was left out from Nick Piggin's new a_ops > > patchset, as it was non-essential, and postponed for later inclusion. > > > > This short series reintroduces it, but only adds the fuse > > implementation and not simple_perform_write(), which I'm not sure > > would be a significant improvement. > > > > This allows larger than 4k buffered writes for fuse, which is one of > > the most requested features. > > > > This goes on top of the "fuse: writable mmap" patches. > > Please don't do this, but rather implement your own .aio_write. There's > very little in generic_file_aio_write that wouldn't be handle by > ->perform_write and we should rather factor those up or move to higher > layers than adding this ill-defined abstraction. > Moving up to higher layers might not be possible, due to lock/unlock of i_mutex being inside generic_file_aio_write(). But with fuse being the only user, it's not a huge issue duplicating some code. Nick, were there any other candidates, that would want to use such an interface in the future? Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org