On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 04:57:35PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > Avoids the need to open code do_iter_readv_writev() purely to request > that a sync iocb make use of IOCB_DIRECT. > > Care was taken to preserve the long-established value for IOCB_DIRECT > (1 << 17) when introducing RWF_DIRECT. What is the problem with using vfs_iocb_iter_read instead of vfs_iter_read and passing the iocb directly?
