From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755746AbXI0LMZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:12:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754133AbXI0LMR (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:12:17 -0400 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([87.55.233.238]:1482 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754195AbXI0LMQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:12:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:13:48 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: NeilBrown Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 000 of 4] Change prototype for bi_end_io Message-ID: <20070927111348.GO5243@kernel.dk> References: <20070927171111.3251.patches@notabene> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070927171111.3251.patches@notabene> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 27 2007, NeilBrown wrote: > Hi Jens, > here are a few more patches from my set that makes various changes to bio > submission and handling. > > These change the ->bi_end_io prototype so that > 1/ no 'size' is passed > 2/ there is no return value. > > The 'size' is not really of interest to any bi_end_io handler in existance. > It is really only an internal detail to the "request" handling in ll_rw_blk > and lower levels. > The return value is completely unused. > > After these patches, ->bi_end_io is only ever called once per bio. > > Note that the last patch makes lots and lots of simple changes. I > think I have found all the right places, but any recently added > device drivers might still be using the old bi_end_io prototype. > I'll grep again after these patches are in your tree. Thanks Neil, this looks good! We get rid of the ability to do partial completions. It's a nice concept in theory, but as you noted nobody uses it. And most drivers only do real full completions anyway, so there's little interest in supporting it. > That patches are against linux-block as of an hour ago. I had to shoe horn the patches a bit, they really should be on the block-2.6.24 branch. But that's ok, even if you had done them against that branch, I had to redo the barrier branch and the sglist stuff anyway. -- Jens Axboe