Re: [patch 2/3] fs: introduce perform_write aop

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 02:30:24PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> So I've tried a different approach - the 2-op API rather than an actor.
> 
> perform_write stays around as a higher performance API, but it isn't
> required if the filesystem implements the 2-op API. I've called them
> write_begin/write_end for now.
> 
> There are a few upshots to doing this rather than the actor approach.
> First of all, this is what callers expect, they want to write into the
> page directly rather than making an actor.
> 
> More importantly, it allows us to implement generic block versions of
> the API which is much more reusable than block_perform_write (which was
> basically useless for anything more than ext2).

Generally thiis look pretty cool.  But even if we go with perform_write
as aop for now (which I think is a bad idea aswell, but moving it out
would better be done after all filesystems are converted) these should
just stay callbacks passed to generic_perform_write.
-
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/