From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] block: Move queue limits to an embedded struct Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 14:50:08 -0400 Message-ID: <20090518185007.GA839@redhat.com> References: <1242362435-11953-1-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <1242362435-11953-4-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:49244 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751772AbZERS7H (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2009 14:59:07 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1242362435-11953-4-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: rwheeler@redhat.com, jeff@garzik.org, neilb@suse.de, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, agk@redhat.com On Fri, May 15 2009 at 12:40am -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > From: Martin K. Petersen > > To accommodate stacking drivers that do not have an associated request > queue we're moving the limits to a separate, embedded structure. Given DM motivated this change, any reason you held off including the associated DM changes (in a separate patch in the series)? Your initial DM patch looked reasonable. On some level leaving that patch out of the series prevents reviewers the opportunity to really see why a separate 'queue_limits' structure is even needed. The follow-up question being: is the topology infrastructure adequately equipped to support DM? I think so but having others' review would be nice. Are you looking for such DM changes to be submitted through Alasdair's tree _after_ your changes go upstream through Jens' tree? Regards, Mike