From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Grover Subject: Re: [PATCH] target: Pass through I/O topology for block backstores Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:29:37 -0700 Message-ID: <525F1351.8020403@redhat.com> References: <1381513206-8155-1-git-send-email-agrover@redhat.com> <20131011180348.GA21030@infradead.org> <52584905.4080307@redhat.com> <20131012080824.GA12362@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:30657 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753468Ab3JPWaU (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:30:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20131012080824.GA12362@infradead.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: target-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, martin.petersen@oracle.com, "Nicholas A. Bellinger" On 10/12/2013 01:08 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:52:53AM -0700, Andy Grover wrote: >> It seemed better to me to keep the munging from queue_limits values >> to what the target core needed in the block backstore code, and not >> use a block-specific structure in the backstore<->core interface. >> >> It looks like a few includes of blkdev.h slipped into target core, >> but these can be removed safely -- lio core doesn't depend on the >> block layer. >> >> We could define a new struct to get the 4 values at once, but it >> didn't seem worth it, esp. since two are only needed by >> emulate_readcapacity16, and the other two only by emulate_evpd_b0. > > I really don't like the influx of methods. But given thsat you have > done the work I'd say merge your patch for now and then we can later see > if we can come up with something more elegant. Nick, any cleaner ways to implement this come to mind? Happy to respin. If not, please apply. Regards -- Andy