From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754836AbYJBQa0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:30:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753856AbYJBQaR (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:30:17 -0400 Received: from pasmtpb.tele.dk ([80.160.77.98]:54827 "EHLO pasmtpB.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753849AbYJBQaQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:30:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:29:56 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: neilb@suse.de, agk@sourceware.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: Block integrity patches for 2.6.28 Message-ID: <20081002162955.GI19428@kernel.dk> References: <1222846723-18213-1-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <20081002105632.GF19428@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 02 2008, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > >>>>> "Jens" == Jens Axboe writes: > > Jens> As far as I can tell, most of that commit is still fine. You > Jens> want bdev_get_integrity() in blkdev.h, the 3 other moves and the > Jens> unused bdev_get_tag_size() do not look like they are being used > Jens> by this patch set. > > bdev_get_integrity() and bdev_get_tag_size() are being used by > stacking drivers and filesystems to prepare I/O. It's correct that > none of the in-tree stuff currently uses bdev_get_tag_size(). That's > coming with the btrfs support. If you want to pull that out for now > and have me put that back later in that's ok. Just adds another > two-stage merge dependency for a later cycle. Well, I would not have added it in the first place, but it was there. I already did the bdev_get_integrity() addon instead of the revert, so lets please just keep it at that. > bdev_integrity_enabled() and blk_integrity_tuple_size() are only being > used from within bio-integrity.c and can move there. I originally put > them in blkdev.h because they are block device functions and not bio > ditto. > > Want me to submit a new patch shuffling bdev_get_integrity() back > where it came from? Do we need any on top of current for-2.6.28? I'll apply your series with the modified patch #5, it'll probably need a hand edit or two since I didn't revert the commit in question, but should be trivial to resolve. -- Jens Axboe