![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 02:16:41PM -0600, Stephen Lord wrote: > Can't you fall back to buffered I/O for the tail? OK it complicates the > code, probably a lot, but it keeps things sane from the user's point of > view. For O_DIRECT, IMHO you should fail not fallback. You're simply lying to the underlying program otherwise. In the ibu fs I am hacking on, the idea for O_DIRECT is to fail a read if the file is small enough to fit in the inode. If the O_DIRECT action is a write, then I will invalidate the data in the inode, then follow the standard path (which eventually calls get_block()). For file tails (a different case from small-file-in-inode), I imagine it would be prudent to support O_DIRECT for all actions except reading the file tail. If you want to be complicated, you could provide userspace with a way to say "this is a dense file" and/or simply not create a tail at all... Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:18 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||