Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:10:20 -0500 | From | Vivek Goyal <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 7/9] block: implement bio_associate_current() |
| |
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 01:06:42PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 02:16:04PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 09:01:28AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Yeah, AFAICS, if the cloning task hasn't issued IO before, CLONE_IO is > > > ignored. > > > > Will it make sense to try to allocate and attach io_context and then > > share it in copy_io()? > > Yeap, that's probably what we should do on CLONE_IO. > > > Well, you are planning to kill CLONE_IO altogether, so it does not > > make a difference. > > Heh, I was just thinking about sending out a RFC patch. I mean, > CLONE_IO handling that severely broken and nobody noticing for such > long time doesn't look good, right?
Yep, it definitely raises the question that how many users are out there.
Thanks Vivek
| |