From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] use scatter lists for all block pc requests and simplify hw handlers Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:26:34 -0400 Message-ID: <1118172394.4791.9.camel@mulgrave> References: <1117847972.23638.62.camel@mina> <1117901234.5005.9.camel@mulgrave> <1117955727.4961.8.camel@mina> <1117982408.4990.12.camel@mulgrave> <1117998665.4990.17.camel@mulgrave> <42A3E275.6030106@torque.net> <1118067544.5045.17.camel@mulgrave> <42A59C35.5060207@torque.net> <1118159966.4813.8.camel@mulgrave> <20050607180719.GB8172@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat16.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.48]:63429 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261981AbVFGUnO (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2005 16:43:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20050607180719.GB8172@suse.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Douglas Gilbert , Mike Christie , device-mapper development , linux-scsi , LIRANS@il.ibm.com On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 20:07 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > Why multi-bio? No one should ever have to build a request with multiple > bio's in one go, that's pointless. The only reason multi-bio requests > exist is because of the file systems not submitting big extents in one > submission. The whole io path would be faster and simpler were it not > for multi-bio requests :-) OK, OK, sorry thinko ... I meant multi-biovec (which can be a single bio) ... however, I'm not the only one who keeps being confused by this ... Incidentally, do I take it you're happy with all of this and I can take (at least the block pieces) through the SCSI tree? Mike, I won't taking the dm-multipath patch unless there's agreement from Alasdair. James