From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] target: Inline struct se_tmr_req into se_cmd Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:25:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20120326092559.GB27806@infradead.org> References: <1327009163-10177-1-git-send-email-agrover@redhat.com> <1327009163-10177-8-git-send-email-agrover@redhat.com> <20120120161209.GA22481@infradead.org> <4F19A80B.6000902@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F19A80B.6000902@redhat.com> Sender: target-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Grover Cc: Christoph Hellwig , target-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kiran.patil@intel.com List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:44:43AM -0800, Andy Grover wrote: > On 01/20/2012 08:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:39:17PM -0800, Andy Grover wrote: > >> This saves all fabrics from calling core_tmr_alloc_req() and > >> having to check the result. The downside is se_cmd gets bigger for all > >> requests, but hopefully later patches will reduce it. > > > > Without patches to void the overhead it's not acceptable. Fortunately > > it should be doable fairly simply by using an union for command vs > > TMR fields. > > This was my thought too. We should be able to move cmd variables into a > union w/tmr struct very soon, with a low risk of introducing bugs. Any plans on going back to this?