![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 09:16:45PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I reverted the direct IO patches because hch complained on me that they > > change the direct IO API, and we really dont want that kind of > > change, IMHO.> > OK, we're on to a specific case. Albeit a very small one. > > I think Trond's direct IO change was right. The impact on out-of-tree code > is infinitesimal. Stick a #define O_DIRECT_NEEDS_A_FILP in the header and > let the XFS guys write a four-line patch. Oh, we have that patch even without the feature define in say -ac and -aa but it's just horrible to have APIs silently change behind you. Especially when just changing a function arg where you only get one more warning in the forrest of warnings produced by gcc 3.3 on a 2.4 tree.. > Or merge XFS. That's of course a good idea [1] but doesn't really help in this discussion. There's other filesystems like ocfs or opengfs that have the same kind of problems. [1] and with the new quota code and vmap() we're almost there.. - 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 13:46 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||