From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] block: Move non-rotational flag to queue limits Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 08:49:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20110531124913.GB12679@redhat.com> References: <4DDEA689.2090004@fusionio.com> <1306464169-4291-1-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <1306464169-4291-3-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <20110527130248.GA17219@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: jaxboe@fusionio.com, msb@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Mon, May 30 2011 at 10:19pm -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Snitzer writes: > > Mike> blk_queue_nonrot vs blk_queue_non_rotational lends itself to a > Mike> small amount of confusion. > > Yeah, I just didn't feel like mucking with the existing call. But it > looks like there are only a handful of users. > > > Mike> What about: > Mike> s/blk_queue_nonrot/blk_queue_non_rotational/ > Mike> s/blk_queue_non_rotational/blk_queue_set_non_rotational/ > Mike> ? > > Most of our other block layer calls take the form blk_queue_max_foo() > for setting foo and {bdev,queue}_max_foo() for querying. > > So I guess the most appropriate thing to do would be to do something > like this? > > > block: Move non-rotational flag to queue limits > > To avoid special-casing the non-rotational flag when stacking it is > moved from the queue flags to be part of the queue limits. This allows > us to handle it like the remaining I/O topology information. > > Also rename blk_queue_nonrot() to be consistent with block layer calling > conventions. > > Signed-off-by: Martin K. Petersen Acked-by: Mike Snitzer