From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin K. Petersen" Subject: Re: Block integrity patches for 2.6.28 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:54:31 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1222846723-18213-1-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <20081002105632.GF19428@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081002105632.GF19428@kernel.dk> (Jens Axboe's message of "Thu\, 2 Oct 2008 12\:56\:32 +0200") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , neilb@suse.de, agk@sourceware.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com List-Id: dm-devel.ids >>>>> "Jens" == Jens Axboe writes: Jens> As far as I can tell, most of that commit is still fine. You Jens> want bdev_get_integrity() in blkdev.h, the 3 other moves and the Jens> unused bdev_get_tag_size() do not look like they are being used Jens> by this patch set. bdev_get_integrity() and bdev_get_tag_size() are being used by stacking drivers and filesystems to prepare I/O. It's correct that none of the in-tree stuff currently uses bdev_get_tag_size(). That's coming with the btrfs support. If you want to pull that out for now and have me put that back later in that's ok. Just adds another two-stage merge dependency for a later cycle. bdev_integrity_enabled() and blk_integrity_tuple_size() are only being used from within bio-integrity.c and can move there. I originally put them in blkdev.h because they are block device functions and not bio ditto. Want me to submit a new patch shuffling bdev_get_integrity() back where it came from? -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering