From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Boris Petkov" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] removing the on-stack struct request Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:32:37 +0200 Message-ID: <9ea470500804230332o69035d5ft919bc579cc0697bb@mail.gmail.com> References: <1208824002-3596-1-git-send-email-fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <58cb370e0804220214va6b7379tfa5b18acf36fd1a7@mail.gmail.com> <20080423074010.GA8221@gollum.tnic> <20080423172500J.tomof@acm.org> <20080423082747.GH12774@kernel.dk> Reply-To: petkovbb@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.174]:60379 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751630AbYDWKch convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:32:37 -0400 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so1938901wff.4 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:32:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080423082747.GH12774@kernel.dk> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: FUJITA Tomonori , bzolnier@gmail.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Jens Axboe wr= ote: > > On Wed, Apr 23 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:40:11 +0200 > > Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14:28AM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiew= icz wrote: > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > Looks promising but probably I'll not be able to review it pro= perly > > > > this week (I'm busy with my real job) and the next week (I'll = be busy > > > > with pushing overdue IDE updates). OTOH I'm hoping that Boris= lav > > > > would be able to take a look in the meantime. > > > > > > Yep, they're quite straight-forward and look fine except some ni= tpicking i sent > > > in separate mails. > > > > Thanks for reviewing, > > > > Yeah, these patches are pretty straightforward mainly because they= are > > against the paths where we can use __GFP_WAIT. > > > > > > > FWIW, this is what we wanted to do initially but Jens didn't > > > agree to that at the time. I guess, it's because i probably didn= 't express > > > myself clearly enough then. See http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchiv= e/linux-kernel/2008/3/1/1037974 > > > for the whole discussion. > > > > I think that IDE uses request struct from interrupt context at som= e > > places. In such places, I don't think that converting requests on = the > > stack and a pre-allocated fixed number of requests to > > kmalloc/blk_get_request with GFP_ATOMIC is an good idea. It's bett= er > > to remove such code (allocating requests from interrupt context). Thanks for clarifying that, i've overlooked that case. --=20 Regards/Gru=DF, Boris