From: Richard Weinberger <hidden> Date: 2014-11-23 22:29:08
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Pieter Smith [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk
To implement splice support, fs/fuse makes use of nosteal_pipe_buf_ops. This
struct is exported by fs/splice. The goal of the larger patch set is to
completely compile out fs/splice, so uses of the exported struct need to be
compiled out along with fs/splice.
This patch therefore compiles out splice support in fs/fuse when
CONFIG_SYSCALL_SPLICE is undefined.
Signed-off-by: Pieter Smith <redacted>
---
fs/fuse/dev.c | 4 ++--
include/linux/fs.h | 6 ++++++
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:29:08PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Pieter Smith [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
To implement splice support, fs/fuse makes use of nosteal_pipe_buf_ops. This
struct is exported by fs/splice. The goal of the larger patch set is to
completely compile out fs/splice, so uses of the exported struct need to be
compiled out along with fs/splice.
This patch therefore compiles out splice support in fs/fuse when
CONFIG_SYSCALL_SPLICE is undefined.
Signed-off-by: Pieter Smith <redacted>
---
fs/fuse/dev.c | 4 ++--
include/linux/fs.h | 6 ++++++
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
From: Pieter Smith <hidden> Date: 2014-11-24 09:49:31
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 03:23:02PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:29:08PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
quoted
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Pieter Smith [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
To implement splice support, fs/fuse makes use of nosteal_pipe_buf_ops. This
struct is exported by fs/splice. The goal of the larger patch set is to
completely compile out fs/splice, so uses of the exported struct need to be
compiled out along with fs/splice.
This patch therefore compiles out splice support in fs/fuse when
CONFIG_SYSCALL_SPLICE is undefined.
Signed-off-by: Pieter Smith <redacted>
---
fs/fuse/dev.c | 4 ++--
include/linux/fs.h | 6 ++++++
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
This needs to go into a different patch.
One logical change per patch please. :-)
Easy enough to merge this one into the patch introducing
CONFIG_SYSCALL_SPLICE, then.
- Josh Triplett
The patch introducing CONFIG_SYSCALL_SPLICE (PATCH 3) only compiles out the
syscalls. PATCH 6 on the other hand, compiles out fs/splice.c. This patch
allows fs/fuse to be compiled when fs/splice.c is compiled out. If I am to
squash it, it would be logical to include it in PATCH 6, not 3.
Is this agreeable?
PATCH 5 does the same as this one for net/core. Should I still keep PATCH 5
separate from a maintainership perspective?
- Pieter Smith
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:49:31AM +0100, Pieter Smith wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 03:23:02PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
quoted
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:29:08PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
quoted
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Pieter Smith [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
To implement splice support, fs/fuse makes use of nosteal_pipe_buf_ops. This
struct is exported by fs/splice. The goal of the larger patch set is to
completely compile out fs/splice, so uses of the exported struct need to be
compiled out along with fs/splice.
This patch therefore compiles out splice support in fs/fuse when
CONFIG_SYSCALL_SPLICE is undefined.
Signed-off-by: Pieter Smith <redacted>
---
fs/fuse/dev.c | 4 ++--
include/linux/fs.h | 6 ++++++
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
This needs to go into a different patch.
One logical change per patch please. :-)
Easy enough to merge this one into the patch introducing
CONFIG_SYSCALL_SPLICE, then.
- Josh Triplett
The patch introducing CONFIG_SYSCALL_SPLICE (PATCH 3) only compiles out the
syscalls. PATCH 6 on the other hand, compiles out fs/splice.c. This patch
allows fs/fuse to be compiled when fs/splice.c is compiled out. If I am to
squash it, it would be logical to include it in PATCH 6, not 3.
The suggestion wasn't to move the fs/fuse/dev.c bits; those should
definitely stay in this patch. The suggestion was just to move the bit
of the patch defining __splice_p from this patch to patch 3. (Note that
you need to define it before you use it, so it can't go in patch 6.)
- Josh Triplett
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 08:05:10AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:49:31AM +0100, Pieter Smith wrote:
quoted
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 03:23:02PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
quoted
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:29:08PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
quoted
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Pieter Smith [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
To implement splice support, fs/fuse makes use of nosteal_pipe_buf_ops. This
struct is exported by fs/splice. The goal of the larger patch set is to
completely compile out fs/splice, so uses of the exported struct need to be
compiled out along with fs/splice.
This patch therefore compiles out splice support in fs/fuse when
CONFIG_SYSCALL_SPLICE is undefined.
Signed-off-by: Pieter Smith <redacted>
---
fs/fuse/dev.c | 4 ++--
include/linux/fs.h | 6 ++++++
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
This needs to go into a different patch.
One logical change per patch please. :-)
Easy enough to merge this one into the patch introducing
CONFIG_SYSCALL_SPLICE, then.
- Josh Triplett
The patch introducing CONFIG_SYSCALL_SPLICE (PATCH 3) only compiles out the
syscalls. PATCH 6 on the other hand, compiles out fs/splice.c. This patch
allows fs/fuse to be compiled when fs/splice.c is compiled out. If I am to
squash it, it would be logical to include it in PATCH 6, not 3.
The suggestion wasn't to move the fs/fuse/dev.c bits; those should
definitely stay in this patch. The suggestion was just to move the bit
of the patch defining __splice_p from this patch to patch 3. (Note that
you need to define it before you use it, so it can't go in patch 6.)
I would, again, argue that stuff like __splice_p() not be implemented at
all please. It will only cause a huge proliferation of stuff like this
that will not make any sense, and only cause a trivial, if any, amount
of code savings.
I thought you were going to not do this type of thing until you got the
gcc optimizer working for function callbacks.
Again, don't do this please.
thanks,
greg k-h