Re: Should implementations of ->direct_access be allowed to sleep?

[Boaz Harrosh]

On 03/29/2015 11:02 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 03/26/2015 09:32 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
<>
> I think that ->direct_access should not be any different then
> any other block-device access, ie allow to sleep.
> 

BTW: Matthew you yourself have said that after a page-load of memcpy
a user should call sched otherwise bad things will happen to the system
you even commented so on one of my patches when you thought I was
allowing a single memcpy bigger than a page.

So if the user *must* call sched after a call to ->direct_access that
is a "sleep" No?

Thanks
Boaz

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/