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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 22:00:34 EST