Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Linux kernel now offers a tty input flag IUTF8 which tells the kernel
> that input is encoded in UTF-8, for proper editing support in canonical
> input mode.
>
> Andreas.
>
> 2004-04-02 Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * src/stty.c: Add
Andy Isaacson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 05:33:26PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Andy Isaacson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > dd(1) is convenient for this purpose, but is lacking a method
> > > to force O_DIRECT. The enclosed patch adds a "conv=direct" fla
> > On modern Linux, apparently the correct way to bypass the buffer cache
> > when writing to a block device is to open the block device with
> > O_DIRECT. This enables, for example, the user to more easily force a
> > reallocation of a single sector of an IDE disk with a media error
> > (without
Bruce Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On modern Linux, apparently the correct way to bypass the buffer cache
> > > when writing to a block device is to open the block device with
> > > O_DIRECT. This enables, for example, the user to more easily force a
> > > reallocation of a single sect
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 05:33:26PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andy Isaacson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dd(1) is convenient for this purpose, but is lacking a method
> > to force O_DIRECT. The enclosed patch adds a "conv=direct" flag to
> > enable this usage.
>
> This would be rath
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 11:18:41AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andy Isaacson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > While you're there, please add an fsync-before-closing option.
> >
> > Easy enough. How does this look? Note that C_TWOBUFS ensures the
> > output buffer is getpagesize()-aligned.
>
>
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 12:34:55PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andy Isaacson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Would there be any reason to allow O_DIRECT on the read side?
>
> Sure. It saves CPU,
OK, I can see that one. But it seems like a pretty small benefit to me
-- CPU utilization is alread
Andy Isaacson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Would there be any reason to allow O_DIRECT on the read side?
Sure. It saves CPU, avoids blowing pagecache, just as with O_DIRECT
writes.
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.or
Andy Isaacson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I claim that O_DIRECT on of= is important because you just plain *can
> not* do the minimal-sized IDE block scrub without it. I don't yet see a
> similar benefit to O_DIRECT on if= side.
If you want a block scrubber then write a block scrubber.
If you
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In 2.6 we do the check at open() and fcntl() time. In 2.4 we don't
> fail until the actual I/O attempt.
This raises the issue of what "dd conv=direct" should do in 2.4
kernels. I propose that it should report an error and exit, when the
write fails, s
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 01:03:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andy Isaacson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I claim that O_DIRECT on of= is important because you just plain *can
> > not* do the minimal-sized IDE block scrub without it. I don't yet see a
> > similar benefit to O_DIRECT on if= sid
> > If you want to add O_DIRECT support to dd then it should be implemented
> > properly, and that means implementing it for both read and write.
> >
> > In fact the user should be able to specify the read-O_DIRECT and the
> > write-O_DIRECT independently - if for no other reason than that the sou
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 05:02:24PM -0500, Nathan Straz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 05:03:58PM -0500, Andy Isaacson wrote:
> > Linux-kernel: is this patch horribly wrong?
> ...
> > to force O_DIRECT. The enclosed patch adds a "conv=direct" flag to
> > enable this usage.
>
> Adding the functi
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In 2.6 we do the check at open() and fcntl() time. In 2.4 we don't
> > fail until the actual I/O attempt.
>
> This raises the issue of what "dd conv=direct" should do in 2.4
> kernels. I propose that it s
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 05:03:58PM -0500, Andy Isaacson wrote:
> Linux-kernel: is this patch horribly wrong?
...
> to force O_DIRECT. The enclosed patch adds a "conv=direct" flag to
> enable this usage.
Adding the functionality to conv= doesn't seem right to me. conv= is
for converting the data
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 01:46:31PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In 2.6 we do the check at open() and fcntl() time. In 2.4 we don't
> > fail until the actual I/O attempt.
>
> This raises the issue of what "dd conv=direct" should do in 2.4
> kernels. I
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:43:41 CDT, Andy Isaacson said:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 01:03:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > If you want a block scrubber then write a block scrubber.
> They exist. They're a pain in the ass to find when you need one. dd is
And finding a block scrubber that actually
17 matches
Mail list logo
