Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 29 Mar 2015 12:13:17 +0300 | From | Boaz Harrosh <> | Subject | Re: Should implementations of ->direct_access be allowed to sleep? |
| |
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
| |