On 6/11/25 2:58 AM, 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? Christoph, are you suggesting that nfsd_iter_read() should always call vfs_iocb_iter_read() instead of vfs_iter_read()? That might be a nice clean up in general. -- Chuck Lever
