[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.1.118 Tons of oopes
    On Mon, Aug 31, 1998 at 06:33:32PM +1000, Richard Gooch wrote:
    > And, probably more important, the VFS code would be neater without all
    > those tests.

    I was about to say:

    You should note that for some operations, the VFS layer does some stuff
    and then calls the FS-specific op to finish the job. Or various other
    combinations. For example... sys_getdents (readdir.c):


    In this case, to avoid fiddling with the semaphore etc. it would be
    necessary to test `if (file->f_op->readdir != default_readdir)' or
    similar. On the other hand, maybe the semaphores are really cheap

    But then I noticed (1) the above is an unusual error case anyway, we
    don't care about a few cycles lost; (2) all the places I saw a d_op-> or
    f_op->, the only additional work that would come from a default function
    entry is a down/up of a semaphore (no big deal if they're fast), and a
    function call.

    Two test and branches would be saved (file->f_op &&
    file->f_op->function). Note that the pointers have to be fetched
    anyway; it is simply two test-against-zero and
    predicted-not-taken-branch instructions. Which is pretty minimal
    overhead itself.

    llseek is an exception -- it specifically substitutes a default function
    for NULL. Also do_readv_writev looks like it could use more function
    pointers to avoid the special case for sockets.

    So perhaps the only notable effect would be to make the calling code
    _appear_ simpler to read, though it would have to be written in tandem
    with the corresponding default function, making the whole lot less
    simple overall.

    -- Jamie

    ps. [ do_readv_writev looks a bit scary. It seems to _assume_ the existence
    of file->f_op->read or file->f_op->write and just call it (no function
    pointer check). Is this safe?

    readv and writev also return EBADF when say, doing writev on a file
    descriptor opened O_RDONLY. Shouldn't it be EPERM or something? ]

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.020 / U:12.172 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site