From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 14:24:58 -0600 Message-ID: <18300bdb-a12f-0b6c-1317-6db3e4391d57@kernel.dk> References: <20180503182114.2797-1-adam.manzanares@wdc.com> <20180503183353.GC1562@bombadil.infradead.org> <47e0a519-37b4-f5e7-0616-8659d11c2b69@wdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <47e0a519-37b4-f5e7-0616-8659d11c2b69@wdc.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: owner-linux-aio@kvack.org To: Adam Manzanares , Matthew Wilcox Cc: "viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" , "bcrl@kvack.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-aio@kvack.org" , "linux-api@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 5/3/18 2:15 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: > > > On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:21:14AM -0700, adam.manzanares@wdc.com wrote: >>> If we want to avoid bloating struct kiocb, I suggest we turn the private field >>> into a union of the private and ki_ioprio field. It seems like the users of >>> the private field all use it at a point where we can yank the priority from >>> the kiocb before the private field is used. Comments and suggestions welcome. >> >> Or we could just make ki_hint a u8 or u16 ... seems unlikely we'll need >> 32 bits of ki_hint. (currently defined values are 1-5) > > I like the approach of using a u16 for the ki_hint. I'll update and > resubmit. It's intended to be a mask. If you do shrink it for now, then we need some guard code to ensure it can always carry what it needs to. -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux AIO, see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/ Don't email: aart@kvack.org