From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH] [9/20] Add blk_kmalloc/blk_alloc_pages Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:26:25 +0100 Message-ID: <20080318072624.GT17940@kernel.dk> References: <20080314134814.GS17940@kernel.dk> <20080314135945.GO2522@one.firstfloor.org> <20080317082711.GB17940@kernel.dk> <20080317083603.GJ27015@one.firstfloor.org> <20080317083832.GE17940@kernel.dk> <20080317085341.GK27015@one.firstfloor.org> <20080317202931.GO17940@kernel.dk> <20080317204548.GB10846@one.firstfloor.org> <20080317204634.GQ17940@kernel.dk> <20080317213422.GA11966@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([87.55.233.238]:22729 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752175AbYCRH01 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:26:27 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080317213422.GA11966@one.firstfloor.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 17 2008, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Look further down in the email, queue_bounce_to_mask() or whatever you > > would want to call it. As also written there, the PRINCIPLE is the same. > > And that is that exporting a to_allocator_mask() helper is a lot saner > > than exporting an allocator api tied to the queue. > > > > Can we get over this, please? > > Ok it would have helped if you had explained why it is saner, but I > bow to your superior experience on block layer issues. Do I detect just a touch of sarcasm there? Andi, I have in (approx) 4 emails explained why I think it is saner. It's even right there, above your own text here. I'm not sure how much more I can say... > The only open issue is right now if it isn't better to go back > for automatic bouncing for SCSI scan and the other users. Do you > have an opinion on that too? If you have one can you please convince > James of it too. Sure, I also wrote that in several emails - I'm fine with bouncing for the scanning, it's not a big deal imho. I can see why James may not like it so much since we can fairly easily avoid the bounce, but as I wrote in the previous email, I think that doing a bit of bounce there may not be such a bad idea after all. -- Jens Axboe