From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755130Ab1HUShS (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:37:18 -0400 Received: from mx2.fusionio.com ([66.114.96.31]:42382 "EHLO mx2.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751630Ab1HUShQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:37:16 -0400 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1313951834-01de28461705b00001-xx1T2L X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: JAxboe@fusionio.com Message-ID: <4E515057.7040802@fusionio.com> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:37:11 +0200 From: Jens Axboe MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Hellwig CC: Linus Torvalds , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] block bits for 3.1-rc References: <4E4E6238.3080808@fusionio.com> <20110820174137.GA27243@infradead.org> <4E5146C1.508@fusionio.com> <20110821181935.GA28979@infradead.org> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [GIT PULL] block bits for 3.1-rc In-Reply-To: <20110821181935.GA28979@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.int.fusionio.com[10.101.1.21] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1313951834 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.101.1.181:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.72428 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2011-08-21 20:19, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 07:56:17PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: >> The discussion was on lkml, as Mike points out. But yes, short time to >> react. Since I can't easily cater to both cases right now, how about we >> add a temporary second meta flag that is only used for tracing? >> >> REQ_META = (__REQ_META | __REQ_META_TRACE), >> RET_META_TRACE = __REQ_META_TRACE, >> >> You get the idea. Not super pretty, but it should solve the immediate >> issue. > > I'd do it the other way around and add a new REQ_META_BOOST flag to > the old callers. I'll cook up a patch on the airport / on my flight > if you want. That would work fine as well, please do cook up the patch if you have flight time anyway :-) -- Jens Axboe