From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@google.com>
To: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Cc: Nate Diller <nate.diller@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] [2/2] Add the Elevator I/O scheduler
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:28:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44D2A2C1.6030300@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060803235304.GB7265@redhat.com>
Dave Jones wrote:
> > +/****************
> > + *
> > + * Advantages of the Textbook Elevator Algorithms
> > + * by Hans Reiser
> > + *
> > + * In people elevators, they ensure that the elevator never changes
> > + * direction before it reaches the last floor in a given direction to which
> > + * there is a request to go to it. A difference with people elevators is
> > + * that disk drives have a preferred direction due to disk spin direction
> > + * being fixed, and large seeks are relatively cheap, and so we (and every
> > + * textbook) have a one way elevator in which we go back to the beginning
> > > blah blah blah..
>
> This huge writeup would probably belong more in Documentation/
Hi Dave,
Surely you did not mean to characterize his documentation as blather? It seems
to be of very good quality, we need to encourage that level of diligence. As
far as moving it to Documentation goes, my immediate reaction is I sure do like
it when the coder cares enough about my understanding of what he's doing to
put such effort into trying to make sure I understand what he's doing and why
he's doing it. Having it right in the code removes a level of indirection when
reading that might make the difference between me reading and not reading the
documentation, which in turn might make the difference between understanding and
not understanding the code. Agreed it's a bit much at least all in one piece.
Maybe precis the in-line documenation and move the greater literary effort to
Documentation, with the requisite "see Documentation/" line?
Regards,
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-04 1:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-03 23:03 [PATCH -mm] [2/2] Add the Elevator I/O scheduler Nate Diller
2006-08-03 23:53 ` Dave Jones
2006-08-04 0:06 ` Nate Diller
2006-08-04 1:28 ` Daniel Phillips [this message]
2006-08-07 20:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-08-04 1:31 ` Daniel Phillips
2006-08-03 23:55 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-08-04 0:08 ` Nate Diller
2006-08-04 5:30 ` Jens Axboe
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=44D2A2C1.6030300@google.com \
--to=phillips@google.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nate.diller@gmail.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