Re: [PATCH] reworked IDE/general tagged command queueing

[Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>]

On Wed, May 01 2002, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> U?ytkownik Jens Axboe napisa?:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I've rewritten parts of the IDE TCQ stuff to be, well, a lot better in
> >my oppinion. I had to accept that the ata_request and rq->special usage
> >sucked, it was just one big mess.
> >
> >So following a suggestion from Martin and Linus, I implemented some
> >basic tagged command queueing back end in the block layer. This is what
> >the new IDE TCQ core is build on, and what potentially others can use as
> >well. I'll start by describing the new API:
> 
> 
> Looking at the IDE part we can now see that pushing the
> generic functions one level up the impact on the code flow
> on the IDE side is now:
> 
> 1. Low (most of stuff is due to the ugly /proc special-ide-interface.
> 
> 2. Nicely isolated.
> 
> Great work Jens! (just my humble opinnion).

Thanks!

> However I see a note about the need
> to unify the DMA parts, so I will se what can be done on this
> side becouse I have always planned to get rid of the
> silly switch(ide_dma_function_t) on the dmaproc-path.

I'll try and get some work done on that tomorrow, right now the dmaproc
crap is a garbage bin of stuff rolled into one.

> May I ask you as well to just call ide-tcq.c simple tcq.c?
> The ide- is entierly redundant and I see no need to stick
> to the previous "convention" here. It is just a leftover from
> the days where the IDE stuff didn't sit in his own directory.
> In general  I rather prefer the prefix ata_ instead of ide_ becouse
> we are on the command level and on the host here -
> ide resides on the disk and the whole world
> outside linux calls it ata_. Finally ata_ is far better
> grep-able overall becouse the ide letter combination is very
> common :-) But that's a minor nit of course.

I agree on the ata prefixing, the ide-* has always annoyed me as well.
And you can rename it to tcq.c if you want, I have no oppinion on that.

-- 
Jens Axboe