On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:17:56AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > 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. Yes. I don't think it's such a big cleanup because the helper is a bit lower level. But IFF we are going down the route of using direct I/O this will also allow to do asynchronous I/O instead of blocking the server threads as well.
