From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265462AbUEUILm (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2004 04:11:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265426AbUEUILm (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2004 04:11:42 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:21211 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265462AbUEUILj (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2004 04:11:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 10:11:37 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Nick Piggin Cc: FabF , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [2.6.6-mm4-ff1] I/O context isolation Message-ID: <20040521081137.GR1952@suse.de> References: <1085124268.8064.15.camel@bluerhyme.real3> <40ADB20C.8090204@yahoo.com.au> <1085125564.8071.23.camel@bluerhyme.real3> <40ADB671.8060904@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40ADB671.8060904@yahoo.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 21 2004, Nick Piggin wrote: > FabF wrote: > >On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 09:38, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > >>FabF wrote: > >> > >>>Jens, > >>> > >>> Here's ff1 patchset to have generic I/O context. > >>>ff1 : Export io context operations from blkdev/ll_rw_blk (ok) > >>>ff2 : Make io_context generic plateform by importing IO stuff from > >>>as_io. > >>> > >> > >>Can I just ask why you want as_io_context in generic code? > >>It is currently nicely hidden away in as-iosched.c where > >>nobody else needs to ever see it. > > > >I do want I/O context to be generic not the whole as_io. > >That export should bring: > > -All elevators to use io_context > > -source tree to be more self-explanatory > > -have a stronger elevator interface > > > > Sorry, my mistake. as_io_context is not nicely hidden away at > the moment. I can't remember why, I think it is only needed > for the declaration... I'll look into moving it into as-iosched.c > > *But*, io_context is already exported to all elevators and generic > code. That was my initial complaint about it as well, however solving it makes it even more ugly I think. It's a layering violation. I guess with a simply ->dtor and ->exit + io_private_data it would be fine, but I'd say don't bother now (it's 2.6.6). -- Jens Axboe