Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] iov_iter: Adjust styling/location of new splice functions

[Jens Axboe]

On 2/14/23 2:07?AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 14.02.23 09:37, David Howells wrote:
>> Hi Jens, Al, Christoph,
>>
>> Here are patches to make some changes that Christoph requested[1] to the
>> new generic file splice functions that I implemented[2].  Apart from one
>> functional change, they just altering the styling and move one of the
>> functions to a different file:
>>
>>   (1) Rename the main functions:
>>
>>     generic_file_buffered_splice_read() -> filemap_splice_read()
>>     generic_file_direct_splice_read()   -> direct_splice_read()
>>
>>   (2) Abstract out the calculation of the location of the head pipe buffer
>>       into a helper function in linux/pipe_fs_i.h.
>>
>>   (3) Use init_sync_kiocb() in filemap_splice_read().
>>
>>       This is where the functional change is.  Some kiocb fields are then
>>       filled in where they were set to 0 before, including setting ki_flags
>>       from f_iocb_flags.
>>
>>   (4) Move filemap_splice_read() to mm/filemap.c.  filemap_get_pages() can
>>       then be made static again.
>>
>>   (5) Fix splice-read for a number of filesystems that don't provide a
>>       ->read_folio() op and for which filemap_get_pages() cannot be used.
>>
>> I've pushed the patches here also:
>>
>>     https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/log/?h=iov-extract-3
>>
>> I've also updated worked the changes into the commits on my iov-extract
>> branch if that would be preferable, though that means Jens would need to
>> update his for-6.3/iov-extract again.
>>
>> David
>>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/Y+n0n2UE8BQa/OwW@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [1]
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230207171305.3716974-1-dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx/ [2]
>>
>> Changes
>> =======
>> ver #3)
>>   - Fix filesystems/drivers that don't have ->read_folio().
>>
>> ver #2)
>>   - Don't attempt to filter IOCB_* flags in filemap_splice_read().
>>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230213134619.2198965-1-dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx/ # v1
>>
> 
> You ignored my RB's :(
> 
> .. but unrelated, what's the plan with this now? As Jens mentioned, it
> might be better to wait for 6.4 for the full series, in which case
> folding this series into the other series would be better.

That is indeed the question, and unanswered so far... Let's turn it into
one clean series, and get it stuffed into for-next and most likely
target 6.4 for inclusion at this point.

-- 
Jens Axboe