From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264181AbTF0LPJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:15:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264186AbTF0LPJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:15:09 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:34733 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264181AbTF0LPF (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:15:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:29:20 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Samium Gromoff Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sct@redhat.com, akpm@digeo.com Subject: Re: [BIO] request->flags ambiguity Message-ID: <20030627112920.GG821@suse.de> References: <20030627134756.4118617e.deepfire@ibe.miee.ru> <20030627104822.GE821@suse.de> <20030627142829.5aea7015.deepfire@ibe.miee.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030627142829.5aea7015.deepfire@ibe.miee.ru> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 27 2003, Samium Gromoff wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:48:22 +0200 > Jens Axboe wrote: > -- snip -- > > > Is it ok to have a possibility of a request with conflicting > > > meanings attached to it? For example REQ_CMD | REQ_PM_SHUTDOWN > > > | REQ_SPECIAL. > > > > No of course not. > -- snip -- > > > Shouldn`t it make more sense to separate request-type-indicator > > > flags into a separate unambiguous type field, which would take > > > one of the following values: - read/write request - sense query > > > - power control - special request > > > > > > And not a currently possible combination of all of them, which > > > seem to be the current situation. > > > > There has been talk of that before, search the archives. > > Umm, i`ve tried and failed, couldn`t you share some vague > pointers about the topic or something? Some pointers here http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105482104321668&w=2 -- Jens Axboe