From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1753309AbYE2HX1@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753309AbYE2HX1 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 29 May 2008 03:23:27 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751337AbYE2HXU
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 29 May 2008 03:23:20 -0400
Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([87.55.233.238]:17504 "EHLO kernel.dk"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751305AbYE2HXT (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 29 May 2008 03:23:19 -0400
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:23:17 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: block: make blktrace use per-cpu buffers for message notes
Message-ID: <20080529072317.GM25504@kernel.dk>
References: <200805281559.m4SFx7b9022392@hera.kernel.org> <20080528231351.a35001bc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080529062214.GG25504@kernel.dk> <20080528233801.e9e55eeb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080529064520.GJ25504@kernel.dk> <20080529070915.GK25504@kernel.dk> <20080529002016.df6cd8c8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080529002016.df6cd8c8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, May 29 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:09:15 +0200 Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > So I dug back into the old archives, and the patch was actually done
> > by me back in feb 2006. Not sure I particularly like it or if it
> > even works in this forward ported version, but it should get the
> > point across. blktrace is the sole user of relay_reserve(), so I
> > think it would be OK to change the interface.
> > 
> > This is clearly NOT 2.6.26 material though, but it's food for
> > thought (I hope).
> 
> hm, it's not pretty, is it.  I think I prefer the existing code unless
> there are other users of this.

It is not pretty, it's pretty much a hack :-)

So lets just keep the current code. It's an extra copy, but at
least it's nice'n clean.

-- 
Jens Axboe