linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>,
	device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
	axboe@kernel.dk, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
	martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: fix leaks associated with discard request payload
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 08:46:09 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100701124609.GA19605@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007010803040.18570@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com>

On Thu, Jul 01 2010 at  8:28am -0400,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:

> > > It is either/or choice. If the interface isn't fixed NOW, the existing 
> > > flawed zeroed-page-allocation interface gets into RHEL
> > 
> > That's a false dichotomy.  You might see an either apply this hack now
> > or support the interface choice with RHEL, but upstream has the option
> > to fix stuff correctly.  RHEL has never needed my blessing to apply
> > random crap to their kernel before ... why is this patch any different?
> 
> We can't apply non-upstream patches (except few exceptions such as 
> dm-raid45). It makes sense, non-upstream patches have smaller test 
> coverage.
> 
> > And the rest of this rubbish is based on that false premise.  It might
> > help you to take off your SCSI antipathy and see this as a system
> > problem: it actually originates in block and spills out from there.
> > Thus it requires a system solution.
> > 
> > James
> 
> Imagine this: I take a FPGA PCI board, I design a storage controller on it 
> and this controller will need 3 pages to process a discard request. Now I 
> say: I refuse to allocate these 3 pages in the driver because the driver 
> would look ugly --- instead, I demand that everyone in the Linux kernel 
> who creates a discard request must attach 3 pages to the request for my 
> driver.
> 
> Do you think it is correct behavior? Would you accept such a driver? I 
> guess you wouldn't! But this is the same thing that you are doing with 
> SCSI.
> 
> Now lets take it a bit further and I say "I may clean up the driver for my 
> controller one day, when I do it, I remove that 3-page requirement --- and 
> then, everyone who allocated those pages will have to change his code and 
> remove the allocations".
> 
> And this is what you are intending to do with SCSI.

Mikulas,

Jens has already queued up a comprehensive fix (3 patches) that James
and Tomo developed.  Please stop the hostility.. it has no place.

Others,
I'd encourage you to not respond to this thread further ;)

Regards,
Mike

  reply	other threads:[~2010-07-01 12:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-06-18 14:59 [PATCH, RFC] block: don't allocate a payload for discard request Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-19  4:25 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-06-22 18:00   ` Mike Snitzer
2010-06-26 19:56     ` [PATCH 1/2] block: fix leaks associated with discard request payload Mike Snitzer
2010-06-27  8:49       ` FUJITA Tomonori
2010-06-27  9:26         ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-27 10:01           ` FUJITA Tomonori
2010-06-27 10:35             ` FUJITA Tomonori
2010-06-27 11:07               ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-27 12:32                 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2010-06-27 14:16                   ` Mike Snitzer
2010-06-27 15:35                     ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-27 16:23                       ` FUJITA Tomonori
2010-06-27 15:33                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-28  7:57                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-28  8:14                     ` FUJITA Tomonori
2010-06-28  8:18                       ` Jens Axboe
2010-06-28  8:45                         ` FUJITA Tomonori
2010-06-28 15:25                       ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-30 11:55                         ` FUJITA Tomonori
2010-07-01  4:21                           ` FUJITA Tomonori
2010-06-27  9:38       ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-27 15:29       ` James Bottomley
2010-06-28 17:16         ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-06-29  8:00           ` Boaz Harrosh
2010-06-29 22:28         ` [dm-devel] " Mikulas Patocka
2010-06-29 23:03           ` James Bottomley
2010-06-29 23:51             ` Mike Snitzer
2010-06-30  0:11             ` [dm-devel] " Mikulas Patocka
2010-06-30 14:22               ` James Bottomley
2010-06-30 15:36                 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-06-30 16:26                   ` James Bottomley
2010-07-01 12:28                 ` [dm-devel] " Mikulas Patocka
2010-07-01 12:46                   ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2010-07-01 14:03                     ` Mikulas Patocka
2010-07-01 12:49                   ` [dm-devel] " Alasdair G Kergon
2010-06-30  8:32         ` Boaz Harrosh
2010-06-30  8:42           ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-30 10:25             ` Boaz Harrosh
2010-06-30 10:41               ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-30 10:57                 ` Boaz Harrosh
2010-06-30 12:18                   ` Mike Snitzer
2010-06-26 19:56     ` [PATCH 2/2] block: defer the use of inline biovecs for discard requests Mike Snitzer
2010-06-27  9:39       ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-27 14:00         ` Mike Snitzer
2010-06-27 14:55       ` [PATCH 2/2 v2] " Mike Snitzer
2010-06-27 15:33         ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-28 10:33       ` [PATCH 2/2] " FUJITA Tomonori
2010-06-28 12:29         ` Mike Snitzer
2010-06-28 15:15           ` FUJITA Tomonori
2010-06-28 15:31             ` Mike Snitzer
2010-06-28 12:34       ` Jens Axboe
2010-06-28 12:37         ` Mike Snitzer
2010-06-28 12:41           ` Jens Axboe
2010-06-28 12:44             ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-28 12:49               ` Jens Axboe
2010-06-28 12:45             ` Mike Snitzer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100701124609.GA19605@redhat.com \
    --to=snitzer@redhat.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@suse.de \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).