From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, mchristi@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, agk@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] rqbased-dm: request-based device-mapper
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:51:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061220185143.GK10535@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061219.171026.115904158.k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
On Tue, Dec 19 2006, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
> For block layer maintainer and developers:
> This patch set has 2 block layer changes below.
> - Changed blk_get_request() to allow calls from interrupt context
> so that queue's request_fn can use it. (PATCH 1/8)
> (*) The behaviour of CFQ (or other scheduler which depends on
> "current") may be affected when blk_get_request() is called
> in interrupt context, because "current" is not the process
> which issue the original request.
This we already covered.
> - Added new "end_io_first" hook to __end_that_request_first()
> and struct request. (PATCH 2/8)
This I still need an explanation for.
> And I'm thinking about:
> - Moving blk_clone_rq() to ll_rw_blk.c from dm.c. (PATCH 7/8)
That definitely should be core code. I see no problem in that.
--
Jens Axboe
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
Cc: agk@redhat.com, mchristi@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] rqbased-dm: request-based device-mapper
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:51:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061220185143.GK10535@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061219.171026.115904158.k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
On Tue, Dec 19 2006, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
> For block layer maintainer and developers:
> This patch set has 2 block layer changes below.
> - Changed blk_get_request() to allow calls from interrupt context
> so that queue's request_fn can use it. (PATCH 1/8)
> (*) The behaviour of CFQ (or other scheduler which depends on
> "current") may be affected when blk_get_request() is called
> in interrupt context, because "current" is not the process
> which issue the original request.
This we already covered.
> - Added new "end_io_first" hook to __end_that_request_first()
> and struct request. (PATCH 2/8)
This I still need an explanation for.
> And I'm thinking about:
> - Moving blk_clone_rq() to ll_rw_blk.c from dm.c. (PATCH 7/8)
That definitely should be core code. I see no problem in that.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-20 18:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-12-19 22:10 [RFC PATCH 0/8] rqbased-dm: request-based device-mapper Kiyoshi Ueda
2006-12-19 22:10 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2006-12-20 18:51 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2006-12-20 18:51 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20061220185143.GK10535@kernel.dk \
--to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchristi@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.