From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF202C49ED7 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:01:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E3EC206C2 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:01:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726898AbfIPIBr (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Sep 2019 04:01:47 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:42998 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726075AbfIPIBr (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Sep 2019 04:01:47 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id C377A68B05; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:01:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:01:42 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Jens Axboe Cc: Max Gurtovoy , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, keith.busch@intel.com, hch@lst.de, sagi@grimberg.me, shlomin@mellanox.com, israelr@mellanox.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] block: centralize PI remapping logic to the block layer Message-ID: <20190916080142.GA25898@lst.de> References: <1568215397-15496-1-git-send-email-maxg@mellanox.com> <1568215397-15496-2-git-send-email-maxg@mellanox.com> <380932df-2119-ad86-8bb2-3eccb005c949@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <380932df-2119-ad86-8bb2-3eccb005c949@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 04:01:11PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > While I like the idea of centralizing stuff like this, I'm also not > happy with adding checks like this to the fast path. But I guess it's > still better than stuff it in drivers. Let's put it that way - we move the check from our two most commonly drivers (one of those also is our most performance sensitive) to common code. I think this should generally be a net win?