![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 07:01:21PM +0200, Carsten Otte wrote: > When looking at patch v2, the read split is done in do_generic_mapping_read > vs do_xip_mapping read. In the write path, the split is at > generic_file_xip_write, > generic_file_buffered_write and generic_file_direct_write. > How about abstracting on that interface? Like make those become address > space operations. No, these aren't related to the address_space at all. Please keep the abstractions clean or we'll end up with a total mess. > This way, the filesystems could select the corresponding > function. No need to distinguish between xip, direct_IO, and classic > readpage/writepage in the generic code anymore. > Would this go in the direction you're thinking Suparna? Is it worth a > try to see > how it comes out? Opinions anyone? I don't think this split makes a whole lot of sense either. The normal codepath needs to go through a lot of hops to make sure the odd behaviour of falling back from direct to buffered I/O for some types of requests works. That needs intimate knowledge of how the direct and buffered I/O path works. Your XIP codepath has the luxury of not having to care for all this, so you can keep it really simple. - 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: 2005-05-28 11:12 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||