On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 11:58:25PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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? Open to whatever. I just didn't want to open code do_iter_readv_writev() like my header said at the start. Mike
