From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Moyer Subject: Re: [PATCH 4 of 7] block: bio data integrity support Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:41:41 -0400 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:53108 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751994AbYFKRlo (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:41:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Martin K. Petersen's message of "Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:05:29 -0400") Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org "Martin K. Petersen" writes: >>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Moyer writes: > Jeff> Hmm, up until this point you use bi to mean bio_integrity, but > Jeff> now it means blk_integrity. Confusion will ensue. ;) > > Err, uhm. There is no bio_integrity. There's the bio integrity > payload which I always refer to as struct bip *bip. And struct > blk_integrity which is always bi. I'm also anal about using bv for > the data bio_vec and iv for the integrity bio_vec. I can't see any > place where I'm inconsistent. Wow, I have no idea where I got that impression. Sorry! > Jeff> struct blk_integrity_exchg is not yet defined in your patch set, > Jeff> so this will likely break git bisect. > > bio-integrity.patch and blk-integrity.patch are artificially split up > to ease the review process. They are not meant to be separate > changesets. OK, just wanted to make sure you were aware of it. Cheers, Jeff