LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Direct IO for fat
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 08:19:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070209071955.GB5433@duck.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <873b5g2zq9.fsf@duaron.myhome.or.jp>

On Fri 09-02-07 04:53:02, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> writes:
> 
> >> > -> blockdev_direct_IO()
> >> >   -> direct_io_worker()
> >> >     -> do_direct_IO()
> >> >       -> get_more_blocks()
> >> > 
> >> > 		create = dio->rw & WRITE;
> >>   Here, create == 1.
> >> 
> >> > 		if (dio->lock_type == DIO_LOCKING) {
> >> > 			if (dio->block_in_file < (i_size_read(dio->inode) >>
> >> > 							dio->blkbits))
> >> > 				create = 0;
> >>   But here create was reset back to 0 - exactly because
> >> dio->block_in_file > i_size...
> >   Obviously, I'm blind and you're right ;) This test is not satisfied
> > and so create == 1.
> >   But still it would seem better to me to return 0 from fat_direct_IO()
> > instead of EINVAL so that write falls back to a buffered one, instead
> > returning the error...
> 
> I see. When I wrote this, I thought kernel should use DIO to write if
> user sets O_DIRECT. Because the wrong alignment request isn't fallback
> to buffered-write, and it's also returns EINVAL.
  I understand. It's just that I've got some surprised users who could not
track why the hell does write() return EINVAL to them when they have
everything alligned and the same code works for EXT3 :). Of course, nothing
guarantees that FAT should behave the same way as EXT3 but I can understand
they were surprised (I had to look in the code too).
  I also don't have a strong opinion whether we should fallback to buffered
write automagically or whether we should return EINVAL and let the user fall
back to the buffered write himself. But I'd slightly prefer the first
option.

									Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SuSE CR Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2007-02-09  7:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-02-08 11:28 Jan Kara
2007-02-08 15:44 ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2007-02-08 16:10   ` Jan Kara
2007-02-08 16:40     ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2007-02-08 17:35       ` Jan Kara
2007-02-08 18:41         ` Jan Kara
2007-02-08 19:53           ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2007-02-09  7:19             ` Jan Kara [this message]
2007-02-09 13:42               ` OGAWA Hirofumi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070209071955.GB5433@duck.suse.cz \
    --to=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: Direct IO for fat' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).