From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29BA07F58 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 2016 06:21:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F19E5304053 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 2016 04:21:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id gCDpCC5IoRGQQe3a (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 04:20:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 04:20:58 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 57/76] xfs: allocate delayed extents in CoW fork Message-ID: <20160103122058.GE28429@infradead.org> References: <20151219085622.12713.88678.stgit@birch.djwong.org> <20151219090248.12713.32309.stgit@birch.djwong.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151219090248.12713.32309.stgit@birch.djwong.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com I really don't like the separate XFS_IOEND_COW flag. This should be an ioend type just like XFS_IO_DELALLOC, XFS_IO_UNWRITTEN and XFS_IO_OVERWRITE. We might need some work in the direct I/O completions for that to really work, though. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs