From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [ATTEND] [LSF TOPIC] What to do about O_DIRECT? Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:36:59 +0100 Message-ID: <20130206173659.GC6397@quack.suse.cz> References: <20130118221007.GA2276@localhost.localdomain> <20130122140337.GC28331@quack.suse.cz> <20130130231600.GD32297@disturbed.disaster> <20130131224109.GC13525@quack.suse.cz> <20130205215112.GQ2667@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jan Kara , Josef Bacik , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Chinner Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52167 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757292Ab3BFRhM (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2013 12:37:12 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130205215112.GQ2667@dastard> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed 06-02-13 08:51:12, Dave Chinner wrote: > The advantage of using shared code is that it eases the burden of > maintenance and enhancement on individual filesystems. Both Josef > and I are putting forward the argument that the shared direct IO > code provides neither of those advantages any more due to current > complexity and fragility that has resulted from the monolithic > "everything for everyone" approach we currently have. > > What I'm trying to say is that maybe there's a better way of > providing generic direct IO support. Perhaps we are better served by > having smaller generic helpers similar to the buffered IO path to > allow filesystems to the simple stuff as optimally as possible > without all the overhead they don't need. One-size-fits-all has > never worked in the filesystems game, yet we seem to be stuck on > that approach here even when it appears to be collapsing under it's > own weight.... :/ Yeah, the approach of providing smaller generic helpers could make the code more readable so I guess it's worth a try. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR